National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging Provision and Technical Corrections, 70651-70665 [E6-20637]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 21, 2006. Walter L. Tweedy, Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area. [FR Doc. 06–9531 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] 40 CFR Part 63 (NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. After promulgation of this final rule, the Administrator received petitions for reconsideration of certain provisions in the final rule. Subsequently, EPA published a notice of the reconsideration and requested public comment on proposed amendments to the NESHAP. After evaluating public comments, we are adopting each of the amendments that we proposed. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058; FRL–8252–2] DATES: BILLING CODE 4910–13–M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RIN 2060–AN32 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging Provision and Technical Corrections Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration. AGENCY: EPA is promulgating amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants SUMMARY: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register as of February 5, 2007. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as ADDRESSES: 321 322 325 324 316, 326, 339 331 332 336 221 622 611 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this final rule, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7485 of this final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this final rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN). EPA has posted a copy of the final rule on the TTN’s policy and VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by the final rule: Manufacturers of lumber and wood products. Pulp and paper mills. Chemical manufacturers. Petroleum refiners and manufacturers of coal products. Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products. Steel works. Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories. Electric, gas, and sanitary services. Health services. Educational Services. guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the 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 February 5, 2007. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by today’s final action may not be challenged separately in any civil PO 00000 copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Eddinger, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5426, fax number: (919) 541–5450, e-mail address: eddinger.jim@epamail.epa.gov. Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS code Any industry using a boiler or process heater in the final rule ... mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Category 70651 or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Background Information Document. EPA proposed and provided notice of the reconsideration of the NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters on October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62264) and received 17 comment letters on the proposal. A memorandum ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE Petition and Reconsideration of the Final Rule,’’ containing EPA’s responses to each public comment is available in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058. E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 70652 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Organization of this document: The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule II. Background III. What changes are included in this final rule? A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Methods B. Utility Steam Generating Units C. Fuel Analysis Requirement D. Consolidated Testing 1. Compliance With Consolidated Testing 2. Monitoring of Common Stack 3. Emissions Averaging when Units in Different Subcategories are Ducted to Common Stack 4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision 5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations E. Definitions IV. Responses to Significant Comments A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring C. Definitions D. Testing Methods V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Industrial boilers, commercial and institutional boilers, and process heaters were listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. II. Background On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218), we promulgated the NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers and process heaters (Boilers NESHAP) as subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 under section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP contain technology-based emissions standards reflecting the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 maximum achievable control technology and a health-based compliance alternative for certain threshold pollutants. We proposed these standards for ICI boilers and process heaters on January 13, 2003 (68 FR 1660). In the preamble for the January 2003 proposed rule, we discussed our consideration of a bubbling compliance alternative and requested comment on incorporating a bubbling compliance alternative (i.e., emission averaging) into this final rule as part of EPA’s general policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly monitored and enforced. (See 68 FR 1686.) Industry trade associations, owners/operators of boilers and process heaters, State regulatory agencies, local government agencies, and environmental groups submitted comments on the emissions averaging approach. We received a total of 40 public comment letters regarding the emissions averaging approach in the proposed rule during the comment period. We summarized major public comments on the proposed emissions averaging approach, along with our responses to those comments, in the preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55238) and in the memorandum ‘‘Response to Public Comments on Proposed Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (Revised)’’ (RTC Memorandum) which was placed in the docket for the final rule. In the September 2004 final rule, we adopted an emissions averaging provision for existing large solid fuel boilers. The procedures that affected sources must use to demonstrate compliance through emissions averaging were promulgated at 40 CFR 63.7522. (See 69 FR 55257.) For each existing large solid fuel boiler in the averaging group, the emissions are capped at the emission level being achieved on the effective date of the final rule (November 12, 2004). Under emissions averaging provision in the 2004 final rule, compliance must be demonstrated on a 12-month rolling average basis, determined at the end of every calendar month. If a facility uses this option, it must also develop and submit an implementation plan to the applicable regulatory authority for review and approval no later than 180 days before the date that the facility intends to demonstrate compliance. Following promulgation of the emissions averaging provision in the final rule, the Administrator received a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from General Electric (GE). Under this PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 section, the Administrator is to initiate reconsideration proceedings if the petitioner can show that it was impracticable to raise an objection to a rule within the public comment period or that the grounds for the objection arose after the public comment period. GE requested that EPA reconsider portions of the emissions averaging provision that it believes could not have been practicably addressed during the public comment period. In the alternative, GE requested clarification that the final rule already allows for consolidated testing of commonly vented boilers. By a letter dated April 27, 2005, we informed GE that we intended to grant their petition for reconsideration. On October 31, 2005, we published a notice of reconsideration and proposed amendments to the final rule (70 FR 62264). In the notice of reconsideration of the emissions averaging provision, we proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 and solicited comment in the following areas: (1) Allowing testing of a common stack in situations where each of the units vented to the common stack are in the existing solid fuel subcategory; (2) treating a group of boilers that vent through a common emissions control system to a common stack as a single existing solid fuel boiler for the purpose of subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63; (3) treating a group of boilers that vent through more than one common emissions control system as distinct units and requiring individual compliance testing according to the methods specified in Table 8 to subpart DDDDD; (4) demonstrating compliance with opacity limits using a single continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) located in the common stack if each of the boilers venting to the common stack has an applicable opacity limit; (5) treating certain common stack situations as a single emission point for purposes of averaging emissions with other existing large solid fuel boilers located at the facility. In addition, our October 31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking included several corrections to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that were not related to emissions averaging. Several clarifying amendments addressed: (1) The applicability of firetube boilers in the small unit subcategories and limited use subcategories; (2) the definitions of firetube and watertube boilers with respect to ‘‘hybrid boilers’’; and (3) the equivalent methods allowed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The proposed corrections include language that: (1) Excludes electric utility steam E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations generating units that are covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da or 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH; (2) adds Equation 4A to subpart DDDDD for calculating a 12-month rolling average emission rate when using the emissions averaging option; (3) requires an oxygen monitor to be installed when a carbon monoxide monitor is required by the rule; and (4) updates American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. A comprehensive response to public comments is available in a document entitled ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE Petition and Reconsideration of the Final Rule,’’ which can be found in the docket (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 0058). mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES III. What Changes Are Included in This Final Rule? In this final action, we are making a limited number of corrections and amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 and sections 63.7491, 63.7510, 63.7522, 63.7525, 63.7540, 63.7541, 63.7575, and Table 6 of subpart DDDDD consistent with our October 2005 proposal. These changes improve and clarify the procedures for implementing the emissions averaging provision and for conducting compliance testing when boilers are vented to a common stack. Among other technical corrections, we also are clarifying several definitions to help affected sources classify ‘‘limited use’’ and ‘‘hybrid’’ boilers. We have modified some of regulatory language that we proposed based on public comments, but overall, we are adopting amendments to the emission averaging provision and other provision in subpart DDDDD that are in substantially the same form as what we proposed in October 2005. A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Methods We are adopting the proposed revisions relating to ASTM test methods without change. As suggested by the ASTM, we are amending Table 6 to subpart DDDDD to reflect updated ASTM test methods. Similar changes are also being made to 40 CFR 60.14 (Incorporation by Reference) of the General Provisions. Additionally, we are publishing in Table 1 of this preamble a list of testing methods that EPA previously reviewed and approved for use as ‘‘alternative’’ methods that are considered ‘‘equivalent’’ for the purpose of Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 70653 TABLE 1.—LIST OF EQUIVALENT METH- intention was to exempt from subpart ODS APPROVED AS OF FEBRUARY DDDDD any units that are already or will be subject to regulation for HAP 15, 2005 Pollutant or Analyte EPA-approved equivalent method Arsenic ...................... SW–846–7060.a SW–846–7060A. ASTM D2361. SW–846–5050. SW–846–9056. SW–846–9076. SW–846–9250. ASTM E776–87. EPA Method 1631E. SW–846–1631. ASTM D6722–01. EPA 821–R–01–013. ASTM E711–87 (1996). ASTM D240. ASTM D2691–95. Chlorine ..................... Hydrogen Chloride .... Mercury ..................... Higher Heating Value Moisture content of Coal Fuel. Moisture Analysis ...... Digestion Procedure Sample Preparation for TSM. Sample Preparation and Digestion for TSM. Sample Preparation and Grinding. Selenium ................... Total Selected Metals EPA 160.3 Mod. EPA–821–R–01–03. ASTM D586 (Dry Ash method). SW–846–3050B. SW–846–3050. TAPPI T266. ASTM E829–94. SW–846–7740. EPA 200.8. ASTM D6357–04. ASTM D4606–03. EPA 7060A. SW–846–6020A. SW–846–6020. a http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ test/sw846.htm. This table is not meant to be exhaustive, because the list of equivalent methods is dynamic. This table is meant to serve as guidance for the methods that have been approved to date. We emphasize that equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or operator. Therefore, maintaining a list of ‘‘approved methods’’ in the final rule is not necessary. Similarly, approval of equivalent methods by EPA or the delegated implementation authority is not necessary. B. Utility Steam Generating Units We are adopting the regulatory language that we proposed to avoid overlapping coverage between subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and other rules that apply to certain types of electric utility steam generating units. The types of boilers and process heaters that are not subject to subpart DDDDD are listed in 40 CFR 63.7491. Our PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 under another standard. (See 69 FR 1663.) Because regulations relating to electric utility steam generating units were under development at the time of promulgation of subpart DDDDD, we were unable to reference a specific rule citation that applied to electric utility steam generating units. Instead, subpart DDDDD excluded electric utility steam generating units by using only the definition of electric utility steam generating units contained in section 112(a)(8) of the CAA. On May 18, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (70 FR 28606). In that rule, EPA established standards of performance for mercury (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) from new electric utility steam generating units, as well as mercury emission guidelines for existing electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH). After that rule was promulgated, it was brought to our attention that the scope of the exclusion in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 for electric utility steam generating units was unclear. Confusion resulted because 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da and HHHH, employ different definitions to determine applicability. (See 70 FR at 28609.) Thus, to clarify applicability of subpart DDDDD, we are amending 40 CFR 63.7491(c) to exclude ‘‘an electric utility steam generating unit (including a unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) or a Mercury Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH.’’ C. Fuel Analysis Requirement We received a comment raising the question of whether we intended for units which combust only a single fuel type to be required to conduct fuel analysis when demonstrating compliance through performance (stack) testing, as required by 40 CFR 63.7510(a). Our intent, as stated in the September 2004 preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55225), was that ‘‘Units burning only a single fuel type (not including startup fuels) do not need to determine, by fuel analysis, the fuel inlet operating limit when conducting performance tests.’’ In this final action, we are adding similar language to 40 CFR 63.7510(a) to make this understanding explicit in the text of our regulations. This change was not included among the corrections we proposed in October 2005. However, since this revision is based on language in the September 2004 preamble that has not given rise to any objection, we are adopting this correction as part of this final rule. E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 70654 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations D. Consolidated Testing and Emissions Averaging The current language for the emissions averaging option in 40 CFR 63.7522 requires testing of each individual boiler in the averaging group. Our intent with regard to the emissions averaging option in the final rule was to provide an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly compliance alternative. Since testing emissions from a common stack for a group of boilers would be equivalent to the average emissions calculated from emissions tests on each individual boiler, we are amending subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to allow testing of emissions at the common stack under specified situations described below. Consolidated testing of the common stack must be conducted when each boiler is operated under representative testing conditions as specified in the National Stack Testing Guidance issued by EPA on September 30, 2005. The amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 adopted in this action are substantially the same as what we proposed in October 2005. However, based on public comments, we have modified some of the proposed language and added some conforming amendments to other provisions of subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that relate to emissions averaging. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES 1. Compliance With Consolidating Testing GE sought clarification on the consolidated testing procedures necessary to demonstrate compliance in two different common stack situations. In one situation, the exhaust from three existing large solid fuel boilers are combined and vented through a common emissions control system to a common stack. In the other situation, the exhaust from two existing large solid fuel boilers are each individually controlled prior to being vented to a common stack. In the revised regulatory provisions set forth below, we are amending this final rule to clarify how to demonstrate compliance under these two circumstances. The final amendments address these two circumstances in the same way that we proposed in October 2005. In the first situation, a group of units that share a common control device before venting to a common stack is treated as a single source. In such situations, an operator can demonstrate compliance by testing at the common stack without using the emissions averaging equations in 40 CFR 63.7522 for each unit or submitting an implementation plan. We are also VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 adding language in section 63.7522(k) of subpart DDDDD to clarify that the common stack situations described above may be treated as a separate single emission point for purpose of including these units in an emissions averaging group with other existing large solid fuel boilers located at the facility. We are adopting a slightly different approach for averaging emissions from groups of affected units that vent to a common stack through more than one emissions control system. These distinct approaches are necessary to ensure that a source with more than one emissions control system demonstrates continuous compliance at each emissions control system. Where a group of boilers vents to a common stack through more than one emission control system, continuous compliance will be demonstrated according to the methods specified in Table 8 to subpart DDDDD. 2. Monitoring of Common Stack In this final action, we are adding an amendment to section 63.7541 of subpart DDDDD to address the COMS requirements for facilities participating in the emissions averaging option. If each of the boilers venting to a common stack has an applicable opacity operating limit, a dry control system, and no units from other subcategories or nonaffected units vent to the common stack, then a single COMS may be located in the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack. Alternately, if any of the boilers venting to the common stack does not have an applicable opacity operating limit, but each of the existing solid fuel units is equipped with a dry control system and no nonaffected units vent to the common stack, a COMS monitor may be located at the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack. We amended 40 CFR 63.7541 to allow for a COMS monitor at the common stack in this situation. We discussed this approach in the October 2005 proposal (70 FR at 62268), but did not include any regulatory language in that action. Commenters requested that we make explicit in our regulations that this practice is permissible when sources elect to demonstrate compliance using emissions averaging. 3. Emissions Averaging When Units in Different Subcategories Are Ducted to Common Stack In response to the GE petition for reconsideration, we proposed amendments that would limit the emissions averaging provision to common stack scenarios that contained PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 solely units in the existing large solid fuel subcategory. In this final action, we have decided to expand the emissions averaging provision to allow units in the existing large solid fuel subcategory to conduct performance tests at the end of a common stack configuration with affected units from other subcategories and nonaffected units under specific circumstances. As a result of public comments submitted, we now recognize that affected units from several subcategories (e.g., both gas and solid fuel fired units) and nonaffected units are sometimes ducted to a common stack. To address these situations, we are adopting a revised amendment to the emissions averaging provision in 40 CFR 63.7522 that allows consolidated testing of units in the existing large solid fuel subcategory as long as the commonly vented units from other subcategories and nonaffected units follow specific procedures during the consolidated compliance test. The emissions averaging provision is only applicable to units in the existing large solid fuel subcategory. EPA did not find cause to promulgate emissions limitations for many of the subcategories of existing units. However, new units are subject to different emissions limitations than existing units. These differing emissions limitations make it difficult to allow consolidated testing of emissions from sources in different subcategories under an emissions averaging approach. However, to eliminate this obstacle to consolidated testing when existing large solid fuel units may share a duct or stack with units in other subcategories or nonaffected units covered by another NESHAP category, we are requiring facilities to shut down, or vent to a different stack, affected boilers or process heaters in other subcategories or nonaffected units in other categories prior to performing a consolidated compliance test for the units in the large solid fuel subcategory. Testing of a common stack in these situations will measure the average emissions from the averaging group of existing large solid fuel units, just as if each boiler in the large solid fuel subcategory was tested individually and their emissions averaged. By requiring the affected units from other subcategories or nonaffected units to be shut off, or vented to a different stack, during testing, the consolidated testing for certain stack configurations allows the group of existing large solid fuel boilers to demonstrate initial compliance at a lower cost. Allowing the testing of a common stack under these conditions also E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations satisfies the criteria discussed in the September 2004 preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55239) that EPA has generally imposed on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1) No averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources that are not part of the same major source, (3) no averaging between sources within the same major source that are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources. This final rule fully satisfies each of these criteria. The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory. Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during compliance testing are not included in the average or comingled with the emissions that are the focus of the test. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES 4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision As a result of this expansion to the emissions averaging provision, we had to establish continuous compliance procedures with this provision to address common stack scenarios with units from multiple subcategories or nonaffected units. In this final rule, we are also amending 40 CFR 63.7541 to establish continuous compliance procedures under the emissions averaging provision for common stack configurations with different subcategories or nonaffected units. These amendments require affected units to maintain 3-hour average parametric limits on all the control devices for existing large solid fuel boilers venting to a common stack. The parametric limits will ensure that the control devices continue to operate under the conditions established during the initial compliance test. These amendments establish continuous compliance requirements for common stack configurations that were not previously eligible to comply with the emissions averaging provision. 5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations This final rule includes several additional amendments to subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 63.7522 that were recommended in public comments. These amendments clarify that, under the emissions averaging provision, continuous compliance must be demonstrated at the end of every month (12 times per year). In addition, we have made several corrections to the formulas used in emissions averaging calculations. Additional details on these VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 amendments are reflected in the Response-to-Comments document that is available in Docket No. EPA-HQOAR–2002–0058. E. Definitions In the October 2005 notice, we proposed to add or amend several definitions in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify our intent and correct inadvertent omissions. In this final action, we are adopting modified versions of several definitions based on public comments. In addition, we are promulgating three additional definitions to provide additional clarity requested by commenters. We have added a definition for ‘‘common stack’’ similar to the definition provided in 40 CFR part 72 at the request of some of the commenters. We have also added a definition for ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ since this term is used to define ‘‘equivalent’’ as this term is used in Table 6 of subpart DDDDD. We are adopting the same definition of ‘‘equivalent’’ that we proposed, but we have added language to Table 6 of subpart DDDDD to clarify that equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 at the discretion of the source owner or operator. The definitions for both ‘‘firetube boiler’’ and ‘‘watertube boiler’’ are amended to include criteria for classifying boilers designed with both firetubes and watertubes, commonly referred to as ‘‘hybrid boilers.’’ Based on comments, we are adopting a modified definition of firetube boiler to include boilers that utilize a containment shell that encloses firetubes and allows the water to vaporize and steam to separate. We have also modified the definition of watertube boilers that we proposed to include boilers that incorporate a steam drum with tubes connected to the drum to separate steam from water. We have amended the proposed definitions for both small gaseous and small liquid fuel subcategories to clarify that these subcategories include all firetube boilers, regardless of size, as well as other types of boilers with a rated capacity of 10 million MMBtu per hour heat input or less. We have amended the definitions to clarify our intent that firetube boilers greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input are still part of the small subcategory. We have also added an amendment to the definitions for both the small and large gaseous fuel subcategories to allow for units in these two categories to periodically test using liquid fuel as long as the tests do not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. This allowance was PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 70655 adopted because of the need to test an emergency fuel in order to ensure that the unit could effectively operate using the emergency fuel during a period of gas curtailment. California regulations stipulate a 48-hour limit on this periodic testing on emergency fuels, and we have adopted their precedent. We are also amending the definition of ‘‘fuel type’’ in response to a comment we received. Questions have been raised on whether we intended for units that may burn evidence seized in drug raids as a public service for a variety of enforcement agencies to test these materials as part of the compliance testing requirements. It is reportedly exceedingly difficult to arrange for a test of these materials given the security that surrounds them. Also, facilities have been approached about burning retired U.S. flags. Burning is the preferred mode of disposal of retired U.S. flags. Since we did not intend to include contraband materials, or U.S. flags, as a fuel when a facility is conducting performance tests or fuel analyses to demonstrate compliance, we are amending the definition of ‘‘fuel type’’ to include the statement ‘‘Contraband, prohibited goods, or retired U.S. flags, burned at the request of a government agency, are not considered a fuel type for the purpose of this subpart.’’ We do not classify facilities designed and operated for energy recovery as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators if they combust small amounts of others materials. (See 70 FR 55568, 55575; September 22, 2005.) A revision to the definition of ‘‘fuel type’’ was not included among the corrections that we proposed. However, since this amendment addresses a de minimis situation that supports law enforcement efforts and respect for a national symbol, we are adopting this correction in this final action. IV. Responses to Significant Comments We received 17 public comment letters on the proposed rule and notice of reconsideration. Complete summaries of all the comments and EPA responses are found in the Response-to-Comments document (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section). The most significant comments are summarized below. A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA expand the common stack testing option to include common stack configurations with groups of boilers from different subcategories or units not subject to the boiler NESHAP. Two of these commenters added that in E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES 70656 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations many situations the layout of boilers and ductwork to common stacks make it impractical to perform emissions testing on each individual boiler venting to the common stack due to a lack of appropriate sampling location and duct configurations. One commenter (OAR– 2002–0058–0722) added that in order to test each individual unit a source would have to build a temporary testing system of stacks and ductwork to demonstrate initial compliance, and this temporary system would still not be suitable for demonstrating continuous compliance. The commenter contended that without expanding the testing to groups of boilers from different source categories venting to a common stack, the NESHAP would require a source to reconfigure its ductwork and build new stacks. One commenter approved of EPA’s amendments to allow common stack performance testing under the circumstances provided in the proposed amendments. Response: We agree in part with the commenters’ recommendation and have modified the rule to allow performance testing to be conducted at the end of stacks that receive emissions from boilers from different subcategories and nonaffected units in other NESHAP categories, as long as the emissions from these other units are stopped or redirected as described further below. However, we do not consider it appropriate to allow averaging of emissions from units in other subcategories or nonaffected units or consolidated testing of co-mingled emissions from units in other subcategories or nonaffected units. EPA has generally imposed limits on emissions averaging programs, which includes no averaging between emission units that are not part of the same source category. Since these units are generally subject to different emissions limitations, averaging or co-mingling of emissions would not provide a reliable demonstration of compliance with the applicable emissions limitation for those sources in a particular category or subcategory. Nevertheless, we do consider it appropriate under specified conditions described further below to allow testing at the end of the common stack for existing large solid fuel units at facilities with stack configurations that contain units from other subcategories (e.g., gasfired units) and nonaffected units. EPA has established a clear and enforceable method for demonstrating initial, annual, and continuous compliance when units of different subcategories and nonaffected units vent to a common stack. Further, extending the common VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 stack testing option to these stack configurations will not cause adverse effects to human health or the environment. The total emissions out of the stack will not increase as a result of this extension and compliance with the emission limits of each unit feeding the common stack will be determined by parametric limits on the control device through which the units vent to the common stack. Facilities that have common stack configurations consisting of units subject to the boiler NESHAP and units from other source categories also have the prerogative to petition for alternate testing and compliance plans on a sitespecific basis. B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring Comment: Several commenters suggested an alternative methodology to meet the requirements of initial and annual compliance tests for units opting to use the emissions averaging provision. These commenters suggested that during the initial and subsequent annual compliance tests, all boilers venting to the common stack that are not subject to emission limits be turned off (i.e. gas-fired units or nonaffected units). These commenters suggested that shutting down units of different subcategories or nonaffected units would satisfy the requirements of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter added that these methods will still provide reliable test data to the regulatory authorities to demonstrate compliance. One commenter added that since many large solid fuel units share a stack with gas-fired units, the NESHAP, as proposed in the notice of reconsideration, would require individual performance testing on each large solid fuel boiler, which would greatly increase the costs of testing compliance and increase system downtime. Response: We agree that turning off units from other subcategories (e.g., gasfired units) and nonaffected units during the testing period, satisfies the requirements of the boiler NESHAP emissions averaging provision. Allowing the testing of a common stack, when units from other subcategories and nonaffected units are turned off satisfies the criteria that EPA has generally imposed on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1) No averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources that are not part of the same major source, (3) no averaging between sources within the same major source that are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 new sources. The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory. Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during compliance testing are not included in the average or co-mingled with the emissions that are the focus of the test. Facilities that have common stack configurations, with units subject to the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units, have the prerogative to petition for alternate testing and compliance plans on a site-specific basis. The type of testing discussed here is one example of an alternate testing and compliance plan that a facility would petition for on a site-specific basis. We have adjusted the rule language in 40 CFR 63.7522(h) to allow for shutting down units from other subcategories and nonaffected units to demonstrate compliance with the emissions averaging provision when units belonging to different subcategories of the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units vent to the same stack as large solid fuel boilers. Comment: Two commenters suggested that parametric limits be set on all control devices used on solid fuel fired units and that these parametric limits be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These commenters added that parametric limits on the control devices for existing large solid-fuel boilers would ensure that these control devices operated under the conditions established during the initial compliance test and provide a defensible way to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter suggested that parametric compliance limits be set on any control device in the group of units sharing a common stack, regardless of whether the conditions are wet or dry in the stack. Response: We agree that setting parametric limits on all control devices for existing large solid-fuel boilers venting to a common stack is an acceptable method for demonstrating continuous compliance with the emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These parametric limits are a clear and enforceable method of demonstrating compliance. We have adjusted the rule language in 40 CFR 63.7541 to allow for a facility to demonstrate continuous compliance under the emissions averaging provision by using parametric limits on the control devices of existing large solid fuel units venting to a common stack. E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Comment: One commenter requested that EPA allow for a COMS at a common stack even when a source does not make use of the emissions averaging provision and opts to do performance testing on individual boilers. The commenter added that this regulatory flexibility will reduce compliance costs and maintain adequate levels of emissions monitoring. Two commenters requested that EPA clarify 40 CFR 63.7525(b) to allow a COMS to be located at the common stack, regardless of whether the group of boilers sharing a common stack consists of boilers of different subcategories. One commenter suggested that it did not believe EPA intended to require a COMS on individual units sharing a common stack. The commenter added that it is impractical, due to a lack of space or adequate location, to install individual COMS monitors in the duct work for groups of boilers that share a common stack. The commenter cites 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification (PS)–1, to reference that in many cases this requirement has been satisfied by placing a COMS on the common stack. One commenter suggested that language be added to 40 CFR 63.7522(j)(3) to indicate that a COMS monitor is required at a common stack, even when each individual boiler unit has a separate opacity operating limit. The commenter is concerned that without additional language, 40 CFR 63.7522(j)(3) could be misinterpreted to require a COMS in each duct leading to the common stack. The commenter noted that although there is discussion of this intent in the preamble (70 FR 62268), the commenter suggested that there be language added to this effect in the actual rule text. The commenter also suggested that language be added to 40 CFR 63.7541(a)(2) to clarify that a single COMS monitor for a group of units that each vents through a unique control system and then to a common stack. The commenter suggested this language is necessary so that this group of units is treated similarly to a group of units venting through a common control device to a common stack with respect to the requirements of a COMS. Response: We agree with these suggestions as long as all units feeding the common stack are in the existing large solid fuel subcategory. The emissions averaging provision was intended to be an option for affected facilities to allow for increased regulatory flexibility. We reiterate here that if a source chooses to do performance testing for HAP emissions at each individual unit, the source is still eligible to locate a COMS monitor VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 on the common stack as long as all the units feeding the common stack are in the existing large solid fuel subcategory. We disagree with the commenter’s suggestion to allow for a COMS monitor to be located at the common stack when groups of boilers from different affected subcategories or nonaffected units are feeding the stack. We also disagree with allowing a single COMS unit to be placed on the common stack if the units feeding the common stack belong to other source categories. C. Definitions Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA modify the definitions of firetube and watertube boilers to account for hybrid boilers. The commenters suggested that EPA make the distinction between the two units based on the location of the containment or steam separation system in the unit in order to clarify the basic difference between fire tube and water tube units. Three commenters added that water tube units incorporate a steam drum, which provides for steam separation from water, whereas a fire tube unit uses a containment shell, inside which the water vaporizes and steam separates. One commenter suggested that a water tube boiler be defined as a boiler that has a water tube type of steam drum, with no additional heat exchange surface in the form of fire tubes running through the drum. The commenter suggested that a fire tube boiler be defined as any hybrid type of boiler where steam separation takes place in a vessel that also contains fire tubes that provide the major heat input to the water. The commenter added that this approach will simplify interpretation of this definition. Two commenters requested that EPA adopt the following addition to the definition of firetube boiler to account for hybrid boilers: ‘‘All owners or operators of hybrid boilers that have been registered/ certified by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the State as firetube boilers as indicated by ‘‘Form P–2’’ (Manufacturers Data Report For All Types of Boilers Except Watertube and Electric As Required by the Provisions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Rules, Section I) shall be considered small units for the purpose of this subpart.’’ Response: We agree with the distinction between a firetube and watertube boiler using the criteria of whether a unit has a containment shell or a steam drum. We consider the ASME Code Rules and Forms to be an acceptable and established method for classifying vessel types. We have PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 70657 modified the proposed definitions of watertube and firetube boilers to allow a facility to classify its hybrid vessel by one of two methods: (1) Determining whether or not the unit has a steam drum or containment system, or (2) the indication of firetube boiler on the ASME P–2 form. Comment: Two commenters requested that the definition for large gaseous fuel units be changed to allow for units to combust oil during periods of natural gas supply emergencies or natural gas curtailment. The commenters added that if the unit combusts oil for periodic testing under these circumstances, this unit should not be automatically categorized in the large oil fuel subcategory. Response: We agree that it is necessary for gas-fired units that are designed for combusting oil during periods of natural gas curtailment to periodically tune the unit for proper oil firing and combustion to be prepared for such periods. Based on review of current regulations in California regarding equipment testing of nongaseous fuel, periodic testing of oil is allowed for a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. This periodic testing for up to 48 hours, which is in addition to periods of combusting oil during natural gas curtailment, will not cause a boiler to be categorized in the oil fuel subcategories. We have amended the definitions to clarify that gas boilers that fire liquid fuel for the purposes of periodic testing are not included in the liquid fuel subcategories. D. Testing Methods Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA list some specific examples of equivalent methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The commenters specifically added that since the promulgation of the NESHAP, EPA has received and approved many site-specific requests for the use ‘‘equivalent’’ methods. The commenters requested that any approved methods be added to Table 6. Another commenter disagreed with deleting test method ASTM D3684–01 from Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The commenter added that this test method should be retained in Table 6, and the final revised table should indicate that this test method is applicable for determining both arsenic and selenium. Two commenters requested that the latest revisions of following test methods be listed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD: ASTM D3684 for coal mercury analysis, ASTM D3683 for coal total selected metals, and ASTM D4208 for coal chlorine content. These E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 70658 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations commenters added that these methods have a long history as established standard methods. By adding these methods to Table 6, sources or testing companies would not have to petition for approval of these established methods. These commenters also added that many coal chlorine levels exceed the upper bound (1136 parts per million) on the concentration range for repeatability and reproducibility on ASTM D6721, and that ASTM D4208 is a more appropriate testing method on coals with high chlorine concentrations. Two commenters recommended that EPA provide authority to the States for approving equivalent testing methods that have already been accepted by EPA on multiple similar site-specific requests. The commenters added that providing authority to the States is an efficient way to determine approved equivalent testing methods. Response: With this action, we have clarified the definition of equivalent method. Equivalent methods are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) or EPA methods which are applicable to the fuel type or target analyte being measured. Although we disagree with adding a complete list of equivalent methods already approved to the final rule itself, we have provided a list of these previously approved methods in the preamble to the final rule. We have also added a definition of VCS to the final rule to help clarify what equivalent methods are. Equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or operator. Therefore, publishing a list of or adding to the list of approved methods is not necessary. Similarly, State or EPA approval of equivalent methods is not necessary. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it is likely to raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 This final action imposes no new information collection requirements on the industry. Because there is no additional burden on the industry as a result of the final rule amendments, the information collection request has not been revised. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0551 (EPA No. 2028.02). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566–1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review VerDate Aug<31>2005 B. Paperwork Reduction 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 impact of this final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, country, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has determined that none of the small entities will experience a significant impact because the final rule imposes no additional regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private section, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, for least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA’s regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Although the original NESHAP had annualized costs estimated to range from $690 to $860 million (depending on the number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the healthbased compliance alternatives), this final rule does not add new requirements that would increase this cost. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This final rule 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. The requirements discussed in this action will not supersede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or 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, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because EPA does not have reason to feel that the environmental health or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by this action presents a disproportionate risk to children. This demonstration is based on the fact that this action does not affect the emissions limits contained in this final rule. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This final rule is not a ‘‘significant energy actions’’ as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this action is not likely to have any adverse energy effect. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act As noted in the final rule, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 70659 with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action involves technical standards. During the development of this final rule, EPA searched for voluntary consensus standards that might be applicable. EPA adopted the following standards in this final rule: (1) ASTM D2013–04, ‘‘Standard Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis,’’ (2) ASTM D2234–D2234M–03E01, ‘‘Standard Practice for Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal,’’ (3) ASTM D6721–01, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Chlorine in Coal by Oxidative Hydroylsis Microcoulometry,’’ (4) ASTM D3173– 03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke,’’ (5) ASTM D4606–03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Arsenic and Selenium in Coal by the Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption Method,’’ (6) ASTM D6357–04, ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Determination of Trace Elements in Coal, Coke, and Combustion Residues from Coal Utilization Processes by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry, and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry,’’ (7) ASTM D6722–01, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by the Direct Combustion Analysis,’’ and (8) ASTM D5865–04, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke.’’ Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 lists the fuel analysis methods included in this final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) in subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures. J. 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 E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 70660 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 30, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows: I PART 63—[AMENDED] 3. Section 63.7491 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.7491 Are any boilers or process heaters not subject to this subpart? Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. * Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(55) through (62) to read as follows: I Incorporation by reference. * * * * * (b) * * * (55) ASTM D2013–04, Standard Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (56) ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1, Standard Practice for Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (57) ASTM D6721–01, Standard Test Method for Determination of Chlorine in Coal by Oxidative Hydrolysis Microcoulometry, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (58) ASTM D3173–03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Subpart DDDDD—[Amended] I 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: I § 63.14 (59) ASTM D4606–03, Standard Test Method for Determination of Arsenic and Selenium in Coal by the Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption Method, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (60) ASTM D6357–04, Standard Test Methods for Determination of Trace Elements in Coal, Coke, and Combustion Residues from Coal Utilization Processes by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry, and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (61) ASTM D6722–01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by the Direct Combustion Analysis, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. (62) ASTM D5865–04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part. * * * * * * * * * (c) An electric utility steam generating unit (including a unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) or a Mercury (Hg) Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH. * * * * * I 4. Section 63.7510 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.7510 What are my initial compliance requirements and by what date must I conduct them? (a) For affected sources that elect to demonstrate compliance with any of the emission limits of this subpart through performance testing, your initial compliance requirements include conducting performance tests according to § 63.7520 and Table 5 to this subpart, conducting a fuel analysis for each type of fuel burned in your boiler or process heater according to § 63.7521 and Table 6 to this subpart, establishing operating limits according to § 63.7530 and Table 7 to this subpart, and conducting CMS performance evaluations according to n 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 * * * * * (b) Separate stack requirements. For a group of two or more existing large solid fuel boilers that each vent to a separate stack, you may average particulate matter or TSM, HCl and mercury emissions to demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 1 to this subpart if you satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this section. (c) For each existing large solid fuel boiler in the averaging group, the emission rate achieved during the initial compliance test for the HAP being averaged must not exceed the emission level that was being achieved on November 12, 2004 or the control technology employed during the initial compliance test must not be less effective for the HAP being averaged than the control technology employed on November 12, 2004. (d) The emissions rate from the existing large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option must be in compliance with the limits in Table 1 to this subpart at all times following the compliance date specified in § 63.7495. (e) You must demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to demonstrate that the particulate matter or TSM, HCl, and mercury emissions from all existing large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option do not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. i =1 Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Hm ) ÷ ∑ Hm VerDate Aug<31>2005 § 63.7522 Can I use emission averaging to comply with this subpart? n i =1 § 63.7525. For affected sources that burn a single type of fuel, you are exempted from the initial compliance requirements of conducting a fuel analysis for each type of fuel burned in your boiler or process heater according to § 63.7521 and Table 6 to this subpart. * * * * * I 5. Section 63.7522 is amended as follows: I a. By revising paragraph (b), I b. By revising paragraph (c), I c. By revising paragraph (d), I d. By revising paragraph (e), I e. By revising paragraph (f), and I f. By adding paragraphs (h) through (k). Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 (Eq. 1) E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 ER06DE06.001</MATH> Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 February 5, 2007. Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of boiler, i, in units of million Btu per hour. n = Number of large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option. (2) If you are not capable of monitoring heat input, you may use n n i =1 Equation 2 of this section as an alternative to using Equation 1 of this section to demonstrate that the particulate matter or TSM, HCl, and mercury emissions from all existing large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option do not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. i =1 Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Sm × Cf ) ÷ ∑ Sm × Cf Sm = Maximum steam generation by boiler, i, in units of pounds. Cf = Conversion factor, calculated from the most recent compliance test, in units of million Btu of heat input per pounds of steam generated. (f) You must demonstrate continuous compliance on a monthly basis determined at the end of every month (12 times per year) according to paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this n n i =1 i =1 Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Hb) ÷ ∑ Hb for boiler, i, for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Hb = The average heat input for each calendar month of boiler, i, in units of million Btu. n = Number of large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option. n i =1 (2) If you are not capable of monitoring heat input, you may use Equation 4 of this section as an alternative to using Equation 3 of this section to calculate the monthly weighted emission rate using the actual steam generation from the large solid fuel boilers participating in the emissions averaging option. i =1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Sa × Cf ) ÷ ∑ Sa × Cf Where: Ave Weighted Emissions = monthly average weighted emission level for PM or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Er = Emission rate, (as calculated during the most recent compliance test (as calculated according to Table 5 to this subpart) or by fuel analysis (as calculated by the applicable equation in § 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Sa = Actual steam generation for each calendar month by boiler, i, in units of pounds. Cf = Conversion factor, as calculated during the most recent compliance test, in units of million Btu of heat input per pounds of steam generated. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 (3) Until 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been accumulated, calculate and report only the monthly average weighted emission rate determined under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section. After 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been accumulated, for each subsequent calendar month, use Equation 4A of this section to calculate the 12-month rolling average of the monthly weighted average emission rates for the current month and the previous 11 months. n E avg = ∑ ER i i =1 12 (Eq. 4A) Where: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (Eq. 4) Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission rate, (pounds per million Btu heat input) ERi = Monthly weighted average, for month ‘‘i’’, (pounds per million Btu heat input)(as calculated by (f)(1) or (2)) * * * * * (h) Common stack requirements. For a group of two or more existing large solid fuel boilers, each of which vents through a single common stack, you may average particulate matter or TSM, HCl and mercury to demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 1 to this subpart if you satisfy the requirements in paragraph (i) or (j) of this section. (i) For a group of two or more existing large solid fuel boilers, each of which vents through a common emissions control system to a common stack, that E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 ER06DE06.005</MATH> n (Eq. 3) ER06DE06.004</MATH> Where: Ave Weighted Emissions = monthly average weighted emission level for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Er = Emission rate, (as calculated during the most recent compliance test, (as calculated according to Table 5 to this subpart) or fuel analysis (as calculated by the applicable equation in § 63.7530(d)) section. The first monthly period begins on the compliance date specified in § 63.7495. (1) For each calendar month, you must use Equation 3 of this section to calculate the monthly average weighted emission rate using the actual heat capacity for each existing large solid fuel boiler participating in the emissions averaging option. ER06DE06.003</MATH> Where: Ave Weighted Emissions = Average weighted emission level for PM or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Er = Emission rate (as calculated according to Table 5 to this subpart or by fuel analysis (as calculated by the applicable equation in § 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. (Eq. 2) ER06DE06.002</MATH> Where: Ave Weighted Emissions = Average weighted emissions for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input. Er = Emission rate (as calculated according to Table 5 to this subpart or by fuel analysis (as calculated by the applicable equation in § 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or 70661 70662 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations does not receive emissions from units in other subcategories or categories, you may treat such averaging group as a single existing solid fuel boiler for purposes of this subpart and comply with the requirements of this subpart as if the group were a single boiler. (j) For all other groups of boilers subject to paragraph (h) of this section, the owner or operator may elect to: (1) Conduct performance tests according to procedures specified in § 63.7520 in the common stack (if affected units from other subcategories (e.g., gas-fired units) or nonaffected units vent to the common stack, the units from other subcategories and nonaffected units must be shut down or vented to a different stack during the performance test); and (2) Meet the applicable operating limit specified in § 63.7540 and Table 8 to this subpart for each emissions control system (except that, if each boiler venting to the common stack has an applicable opacity operating limit, then a single continuous opacity monitoring system may be located in the common stack instead of in each duct to the common stack). (k) Combination requirements. The common stack of a group of two or more boilers subject to paragraph (h) of this section may be treated as a separate stack for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section and included in an emissions averaging group subject to paragraph (b) of this section. I 6. Section 63.7525 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES § 63.7525 What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) If you have an applicable work practice standard for carbon monoxide, and your boiler or process heater is in any of the large subcategories and has a heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per hour or greater, you must install, operate, and maintain a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for carbon monoxide and oxygen according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section by the compliance date specified in § 63.7495. The carbon monoxide and oxygen shall be monitored at the same location at the outlet of the boiler or process heater. (1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according to the applicable procedures under Performance Specification (PS) 3 or 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and according to the site-specific monitoring plan developed according to § 63.7505(d). * * * * * VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 7. Section 63.7540 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: I § 63.7540 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards? (a) * * * (4) If you demonstrate compliance with an applicable HCl emission limit through performance testing and you plan to burn a new type of fuel or a new mixture of fuels, you must recalculate the maximum chlorine input using Equation 5 of § 63.7530. If the results of recalculating the maximum chlorine input using Equation 5 of § 63.7530 are higher than the maximum chlorine input level established during the previous performance test, then you must conduct a new performance test within 60 days of burning the new fuel type or fuel mixture according to the procedures in § 63.7520 to demonstrate that the HCl emissions do not exceed the emission limit. You must also establish new operating limits based on this performance test according to the procedures in § 63.7530(c). * * * * * I 8. Section 63.7541 is amended as follows: I a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text, I b. By revising paragraph (a)(2), I c. By adding paragraph (a)(5), and I d. By revising paragraph (b). § 63.7541 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance under the emission 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 (5) of this section. * * * * * (2) You must maintain the applicable opacity limit according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section. (i) For each existing solid fuel boiler participating in the emissions averaging option that is equipped with a dry control system and not vented to a common stack, maintain opacity at or below the applicable limit. (ii) For each group of boilers participating in the emissions averaging option where each boiler in the group is an existing solid fuel boiler equipped with a dry control system and vented to a common stack that does not receive emissions from affected units from other subcategories or nonaffected units, maintain opacity at or below the applicable limit at the common stack; * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (5) For each existing large solid fuel boiler participating in the emissions averaging option venting to a common stack configuration containing affected units from other subcategories and/or nonaffected units, maintain the appropriate operating limit for each unit as specified in Tables 2 through 4 to this subpart that applies. (b) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to comply with the continuous monitoring requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, is a deviation. I 9. Section 63.7575 is amended as follows: I a. By revising the definitions for ‘‘Firetube boiler,’’ ‘‘Fuel type,’’ ‘‘Large gaseous fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Large liquid fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Large solid fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Small gaseous fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Small liquid fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Watertube boiler,’’ and I b. By adding definitions for ‘‘Common Stack,’’ ‘‘Equivalent,’’ and ‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard’’ in alphabetical order. § 63.7575 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Common Stack means the exhaust of emissions from two or more affected units through a single flue. * * * * * Equivalent means the following only as this term is used in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD: (1) An equivalent sample collection procedure means a published voluntary consensus standard or practice (VCS) or EPA method that includes collection of a minimum of three composite fuel samples, with each composite consisting of a minimum of three increments collected at approximately equal intervals over the test period. (2) An equivalent sample compositing procedure means a published VCS or EPA method to systematically mix and obtain a representative subsample (part) of the composite sample. (3) An equivalent sample preparation procedure means a published VCS or EPA method that: Clearly states that the standard, practice or method is appropriate for the pollutant and the fuel matrix; or is cited as an appropriate sample preparation standard, practice or method for the pollutant in the chosen VCS or EPA determinative or analytical method. (4) An equivalent procedure for determining heat content means a published VCS or EPA method to obtain gross calorific (or higher heating) value. E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES (5) An equivalent procedure for determining fuel moisture content means a published VCS or EPA method to obtain moisture content. If the sample analysis plan calls for determining metals (especially the mercury, selenium, or arsenic) using an aliquot of the dried sample, then the drying temperature must be modified to prevent vaporizing these metals. On the other hand, if metals analysis is done on an ‘‘as received’’ basis, a separate aliquot can be dried to determine moisture content and the metals concentration mathematically adjusted to a dry basis. (6) An equivalent pollutant (mercury, TSM, or total chlorine) determinative or analytical procedure means a published VCS or EPA method that clearly states that the standard, practice, or method is appropriate for the pollutant and the fuel matrix and has a published detection limit equal or lower than the methods listed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD for the same purpose. * * * * * Firetube boiler means a boiler that utilizes a containment shell that encloses firetubes (tubes in a boiler having water on the outside and carrying the hot gases of combustion inside), and allows the water to vaporize and steam to separate. Hybrid boilers that have been registered/certified by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the State as firetube boilers as indicated by ‘‘Form P–2’’ (Manufacturers’ Data Report for All Types of Boilers Except Watertube and Electric, As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code Rules, Section I), are considered to be firetube boilers for the purpose of this subpart. * * * * * Fuel type means each category of fuels that share a common name or classification. Examples include, but are not limited to, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite, anthracite, biomass, construction/demolition material, salt water laden wood, creosote treated wood, tires, residual oil. Individual fuel types received from different suppliers are not considered new fuel types except for construction/ demolition material. Contraband, prohibited goods, or retired U.S. flags, burned at the request of a government agency, are not considered a fuel type for the purpose of this subpart. * * * * * VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 Large gaseous fuel subcategory includes any watertube boiler or process heater that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or for periodic testing of liquid fuel, has a rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input, and does not have a federally enforceable annual average capacity factor of equal to or less than 10 percent. Periodic testing of liquid fuel is not to exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. Large liquid fuel subcategory includes any watertube boiler or process heater that does not burn any solid fuel and burns any liquid fuel either alone or in combination with gaseous fuels, has a rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input, and does not have a federally enforceable annual average capacity factor of equal to or less than 10 percent. Large gaseous fuel boilers and process heaters that burn liquid fuel during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies or for periodic testing of liquid fuel not to exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year are not included in this definition. Large solid fuel subcategory includes any watertube boiler or process heater that burns any amount of solid fuel either alone or in combination with liquid or gaseous fuels, has a rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input, and does not have a federally enforceable annual average capacity factor of equal to or less than 10 percent. * * * * * Small gaseous fuel subcategory includes any size of firetube boiler and any other boiler or process heater with a rated capacity of less than or equal to 10 MMBtu per hour heat input that burn gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels and burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or for periodic testing of liquid fuel. Periodic testing is not to exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. Small liquid fuel subcategory includes any size of firetube boiler and any other boiler or process with a rated capacity of less than or equal to 10 MMBtu per hour heat input that do not burn any solid fuel and burn any liquid fuel either alone or in combination with gaseous fuels. Small gaseous fuel boilers PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 70663 and process heaters that burn liquid fuel during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies or for periodic testing of liquid fuel not to exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year are not included in this definition. * * * * * Watertube boiler means a boiler that incorporates a steam drum with tubes connected to the drum to separate steam from water. * * * * * Voluntary Consensus Standards or VCS mean technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. EPA/OAQPS has by precedent only used VCS that are written in English. Examples of VCS bodies are: American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), International Standards Organization (ISO), Standards Australia (AS), British Standards (BS), Canadian Standards (CSA), European Standard (EN or CEN) and German Engineering Standards (VDI). The types of standards that are not considered VCS are standards developed by: the U.S. states, e.g., California (CARB) and Texas (TCEQ); industry groups, such as American Petroleum Institute (API), Gas Processors Association (GPA), and Gas Research Institute (GRI); and other branches of the U.S. government, e.g. Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Transportation (DOT). This does not preclude EPA from using standards developed by groups that are not VCS bodies within their rule. When this occurs, EPA has done searches and reviews for VCS equivalent to these non-EPA methods. * * * * * 10. Table 6 and text before table to subpart DDDDD are revised to read as follows: As stated in § 63.7521, you must comply with the following requirements for fuel analysis testing for existing, new or reconstructed affected sources. However, equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods at the discretion of the source owner or operator: I E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 70664 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6.—TO SUBPART DDDDD OF PART 63—FUEL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS To conduct a fuel analysis for the following pollutant * * * You must * * * Using * * * 1. Mercury * * * .............................. a. Collect fuel samples * * * ......... Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, See § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.24(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (1998) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D6722–01 (for coal) (IBR, see § 6314(b)) or SW–846–7471A (for solid samples) or SW–846–7470A (for liquid samples or equivalent. b. Composite fuel samples * * * .. c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *. d. Determine heat content of the fuel type * * *. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type * * *. f. Measure mercury concentration in fuel sample * * *. 2. Total Selected metals * * * ........ g. Convert concentration into units of pounds of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content. a. Collect fuel samples * * * ......... b. Composite fuel samples * * * .. c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *. d. Determine heat content of the fuel type * * *. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type * * *. f. Measure total selected metals concentration in fuel sample * * *. g. 3. Hydrogen Chloride * * * ............. Convert concentrations into units of pounds of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content. a. Collect fuel samples * * * ......... Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. SW–846–6010B or ASTM D6357–04 (for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel for all solid fuels) and ASTM D4606–03 (for selenium in coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E885–88 (1996) for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. b. Composite fuel samples * * * .. c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES d. Determine heat content of the fuel type * * *. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type * * *. f. Measure chlorine concentration in fuel sample * * *. g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds of pollutant per MMBtu of heat content.. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87 (1996) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (1998) or equivalent. SW–846–9250 or ASTM D6721–01 (for coal) or ASTM E776–87 (1996) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations [FR Doc. E6–20637 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [FDMS Docket No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006– 0933; FRL–8252–3] State Operating Permit Programs; Delaware; Amendments to the Definition of a ‘‘Major Source’’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to amend the State of Delaware’s operating permit program to correct the definition of ‘‘major source.’’ Delaware’s revision was submitted in response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 that required States to submit to EPA program revisions in accordance with the Federal Title V regulations. The EPA granted final approval of Delaware’s operating permit program on November 19, 2001. Delaware amended its operating permit program to address the Federal EPA amendment to the Federal Title V regulation, which went into effect on November 27, 2001, and this action approves this amendment. Any parties interested in commenting on this action granting approval of Delaware’s amendment to the Title V operating permit program should do so at this time. DATES: This rule is effective on February 5, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 5, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2006–0933 by one of the following methods: A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0933, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:34 Dec 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006– 0933. 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino, (215) 814–3377, or by e-mail at nino.rose@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 18, 2004, the State of Delaware PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 70665 submitted an amendment to its State operating permit program. This amendment is the subject of this document and this section provides additional information on the amendment by addressing the following questions: What Is the State Operating Permit Program? What Are the State Operating Permit Program Requirements? What Is Being Addressed in This Document? What Is Not Being Addressed in This Document? What Changes to Delaware’s Operating Permit Program Is EPA Approving? What Action Is Being Taken by EPA? What Is the State Operating Permit Program? The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all States to develop operating permit programs that meet certain Federal criteria. When implementing the operating permit programs, the States require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all of their applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the operating permit program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of its applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a given air pollution source into an operating permit, the source, the public, and the State environmental agency can more easily understand what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined. Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA’s implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain operating permits. Examples of ‘‘major’’ sources include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) specifically listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. In areas that are not meeting the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM 06DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70651-70665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20637]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058; FRL-8252-2]
RIN 2060-AN32


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: 
Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging Provision and Technical 
Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial, 
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. After 
promulgation of this final rule, the Administrator received petitions 
for reconsideration of certain provisions in the final rule. 
Subsequently, EPA published a notice of the reconsideration and 
requested public comment on proposed amendments to the NESHAP. After 
evaluating public comments, we are adopting each of the amendments that 
we proposed.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final 
rule is approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register as 
of February 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West 
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Eddinger, Energy Strategies 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-5426, fax number: (919) 541-5450, e-mail 
address: eddinger.jim@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by the final rule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
             Category                NAICS code    potentially regulated
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a boiler or                321  Manufacturers of
 process heater in the final rule.                  lumber and wood
                                                    products.
                                              322  Pulp and paper mills.
                                              325  Chemical
                                                    manufacturers.
                                              324  Petroleum refiners
                                                    and manufacturers of
                                                    coal products.
                                    316, 326, 339  Manufacturers of
                                                    rubber and
                                                    miscellaneous
                                                    plastic products.
                                              331  Steel works.
                                              332  Electroplating,
                                                    plating, polishing,
                                                    anodizing, and
                                                    coloring.
                                              336  Manufacturers of
                                                    motor vehicle parts
                                                    and accessories.
                                              221  Electric, gas, and
                                                    sanitary services.
                                              622  Health services.
                                              611  Educational Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
this final rule, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in 40 CFR 63.7485 of this final rule. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this final rule to a 
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this final rule will be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN). EPA has posted 
a copy of the final rule on the TTN's policy and guidance page for 
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the 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 February 5, 2007. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 
only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Background Information Document. EPA proposed and provided notice 
of the reconsideration of the NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and 
institutional boilers and process heaters on October 31, 2005 (70 FR 
62264) and received 17 comment letters on the proposal. A memorandum 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE Petition and 
Reconsideration of the Final Rule,'' containing EPA's responses to each 
public comment is available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058.

[[Page 70652]]

    Organization of this document: The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
II. Background
III. What changes are included in this final rule?
    A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test 
Methods
    B. Utility Steam Generating Units
    C. Fuel Analysis Requirement
    D. Consolidated Testing
    1. Compliance With Consolidated Testing
    2. Monitoring of Common Stack
    3. Emissions Averaging when Units in Different Subcategories are 
Ducted to Common Stack
    4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision
    5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations
    E. Definitions
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
    A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision
    B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
    C. Definitions
    D. Testing Methods
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to list 
categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and to establish NESHAP for the listed 
source categories and subcategories. Industrial boilers, commercial and 
institutional boilers, and process heaters were listed on July 16, 1992 
(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential 
to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of 
any combination of HAP.

II. Background

    On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218), we promulgated the NESHAP for 
industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers and process 
heaters (Boilers NESHAP) as subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 under 
section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP contain technology-based 
emissions standards reflecting the maximum achievable control 
technology and a health-based compliance alternative for certain 
threshold pollutants. We proposed these standards for ICI boilers and 
process heaters on January 13, 2003 (68 FR 1660).
    In the preamble for the January 2003 proposed rule, we discussed 
our consideration of a bubbling compliance alternative and requested 
comment on incorporating a bubbling compliance alternative (i.e., 
emission averaging) into this final rule as part of EPA's general 
policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance approaches where 
they can be properly monitored and enforced. (See 68 FR 1686.) Industry 
trade associations, owners/operators of boilers and process heaters, 
State regulatory agencies, local government agencies, and environmental 
groups submitted comments on the emissions averaging approach. We 
received a total of 40 public comment letters regarding the emissions 
averaging approach in the proposed rule during the comment period. We 
summarized major public comments on the proposed emissions averaging 
approach, along with our responses to those comments, in the preamble 
to the final rule (69 FR 55238) and in the memorandum ``Response to 
Public Comments on Proposed Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 
Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (Revised)'' (RTC Memorandum) which 
was placed in the docket for the final rule.
    In the September 2004 final rule, we adopted an emissions averaging 
provision for existing large solid fuel boilers. The procedures that 
affected sources must use to demonstrate compliance through emissions 
averaging were promulgated at 40 CFR 63.7522. (See 69 FR 55257.) For 
each existing large solid fuel boiler in the averaging group, the 
emissions are capped at the emission level being achieved on the 
effective date of the final rule (November 12, 2004). Under emissions 
averaging provision in the 2004 final rule, compliance must be 
demonstrated on a 12-month rolling average basis, determined at the end 
of every calendar month. If a facility uses this option, it must also 
develop and submit an implementation plan to the applicable regulatory 
authority for review and approval no later than 180 days before the 
date that the facility intends to demonstrate compliance.
    Following promulgation of the emissions averaging provision in the 
final rule, the Administrator received a petition for reconsideration 
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from General Electric (GE). 
Under this section, the Administrator is to initiate reconsideration 
proceedings if the petitioner can show that it was impracticable to 
raise an objection to a rule within the public comment period or that 
the grounds for the objection arose after the public comment period.
    GE requested that EPA reconsider portions of the emissions 
averaging provision that it believes could not have been practicably 
addressed during the public comment period. In the alternative, GE 
requested clarification that the final rule already allows for 
consolidated testing of commonly vented boilers. By a letter dated 
April 27, 2005, we informed GE that we intended to grant their petition 
for reconsideration. On October 31, 2005, we published a notice of 
reconsideration and proposed amendments to the final rule (70 FR 
62264).
    In the notice of reconsideration of the emissions averaging 
provision, we proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 and solicited 
comment in the following areas: (1) Allowing testing of a common stack 
in situations where each of the units vented to the common stack are in 
the existing solid fuel subcategory; (2) treating a group of boilers 
that vent through a common emissions control system to a common stack 
as a single existing solid fuel boiler for the purpose of subpart DDDDD 
of 40 CFR part 63; (3) treating a group of boilers that vent through 
more than one common emissions control system as distinct units and 
requiring individual compliance testing according to the methods 
specified in Table 8 to subpart DDDDD; (4) demonstrating compliance 
with opacity limits using a single continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) located in the common stack if each of the boilers venting to 
the common stack has an applicable opacity limit; (5) treating certain 
common stack situations as a single emission point for purposes of 
averaging emissions with other existing large solid fuel boilers 
located at the facility.
    In addition, our October 31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking 
included several corrections to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that 
were not related to emissions averaging. Several clarifying amendments 
addressed: (1) The applicability of firetube boilers in the small unit 
subcategories and limited use subcategories; (2) the definitions of 
firetube and watertube boilers with respect to ``hybrid boilers''; and 
(3) the equivalent methods allowed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The 
proposed corrections include language that: (1) Excludes electric 
utility steam

[[Page 70653]]

generating units that are covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da or 40 
CFR part 60, subpart HHHH; (2) adds Equation 4A to subpart DDDDD for 
calculating a 12-month rolling average emission rate when using the 
emissions averaging option; (3) requires an oxygen monitor to be 
installed when a carbon monoxide monitor is required by the rule; and 
(4) updates American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test 
methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD.
    A comprehensive response to public comments is available in a 
document entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 
Process Heaters, Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE 
Petition and Reconsideration of the Final Rule,'' which can be found in 
the docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058).

III. What Changes Are Included in This Final Rule?

    In this final action, we are making a limited number of corrections 
and amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 and sections 63.7491, 63.7510, 63.7522, 
63.7525, 63.7540, 63.7541, 63.7575, and Table 6 of subpart DDDDD 
consistent with our October 2005 proposal. These changes improve and 
clarify the procedures for implementing the emissions averaging 
provision and for conducting compliance testing when boilers are vented 
to a common stack. Among other technical corrections, we also are 
clarifying several definitions to help affected sources classify 
``limited use'' and ``hybrid'' boilers. We have modified some of 
regulatory language that we proposed based on public comments, but 
overall, we are adopting amendments to the emission averaging provision 
and other provision in subpart DDDDD that are in substantially the same 
form as what we proposed in October 2005.

A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Methods

    We are adopting the proposed revisions relating to ASTM test 
methods without change. As suggested by the ASTM, we are amending Table 
6 to subpart DDDDD to reflect updated ASTM test methods. Similar 
changes are also being made to 40 CFR 60.14 (Incorporation by 
Reference) of the General Provisions. Additionally, we are publishing 
in Table 1 of this preamble a list of testing methods that EPA 
previously reviewed and approved for use as ``alternative'' methods 
that are considered ``equivalent'' for the purpose of Table 6 to 
subpart DDDDD.

  Table 1.--List of Equivalent Methods Approved as of February 15, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              EPA-approved  equivalent
           Pollutant or Analyte                        method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic...................................  SW-846-7060.\a\
                                            SW-846-7060A.
Chlorine..................................  ASTM D2361.
Hydrogen Chloride.........................  SW-846-5050.
                                            SW-846-9056.
                                            SW-846-9076.
                                            SW-846-9250.
                                            ASTM E776-87.
Mercury...................................  EPA Method 1631E.
                                            SW-846-1631.
                                            ASTM D6722-01.
                                            EPA 821-R-01-013.
Higher Heating Value......................  ASTM E711-87 (1996).
                                            ASTM D240.
Moisture content of Coal Fuel.............  ASTM D2691-95.
Moisture Analysis.........................  EPA 160.3 Mod.
Digestion Procedure.......................  EPA-821-R-01-03.
                                            ASTM D586 (Dry Ash method).
Sample Preparation for TSM................  SW-846-3050B.
Sample Preparation and Digestion for TSM..  SW-846-3050.
                                            TAPPI T266.
Sample Preparation and Grinding...........  ASTM E829-94.
Selenium..................................  SW-846-7740.
Total Selected Metals.....................  EPA 200.8.
                                            ASTM D6357-04.
                                            ASTM D4606-03.
                                            EPA 7060A.
                                            SW-846-6020A.
                                            SW-846-6020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm.

    This table is not meant to be exhaustive, because the list of 
equivalent methods is dynamic. This table is meant to serve as guidance 
for the methods that have been approved to date. We emphasize that 
equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in 
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or 
operator. Therefore, maintaining a list of ``approved methods'' in the 
final rule is not necessary. Similarly, approval of equivalent methods 
by EPA or the delegated implementation authority is not necessary.

B. Utility Steam Generating Units

    We are adopting the regulatory language that we proposed to avoid 
overlapping coverage between subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and other 
rules that apply to certain types of electric utility steam generating 
units. The types of boilers and process heaters that are not subject to 
subpart DDDDD are listed in 40 CFR 63.7491. Our intention was to exempt 
from subpart DDDDD any units that are already or will be subject to 
regulation for HAP under another standard. (See 69 FR 1663.) Because 
regulations relating to electric utility steam generating units were 
under development at the time of promulgation of subpart DDDDD, we were 
unable to reference a specific rule citation that applied to electric 
utility steam generating units. Instead, subpart DDDDD excluded 
electric utility steam generating units by using only the definition of 
electric utility steam generating units contained in section 112(a)(8) 
of the CAA.
    On May 18, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (70 FR 
28606). In that rule, EPA established standards of performance for 
mercury (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) from new electric utility steam 
generating units, as well as mercury emission guidelines for existing 
electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH). 
After that rule was promulgated, it was brought to our attention that 
the scope of the exclusion in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 for 
electric utility steam generating units was unclear. Confusion resulted 
because 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da and HHHH, employ different 
definitions to determine applicability. (See 70 FR at 28609.) Thus, to 
clarify applicability of subpart DDDDD, we are amending 40 CFR 
63.7491(c) to exclude ``an electric utility steam generating unit 
(including a unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) or a Mercury 
Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH.''

C. Fuel Analysis Requirement

    We received a comment raising the question of whether we intended 
for units which combust only a single fuel type to be required to 
conduct fuel analysis when demonstrating compliance through performance 
(stack) testing, as required by 40 CFR 63.7510(a). Our intent, as 
stated in the September 2004 preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55225), 
was that ``Units burning only a single fuel type (not including startup 
fuels) do not need to determine, by fuel analysis, the fuel inlet 
operating limit when conducting performance tests.'' In this final 
action, we are adding similar language to 40 CFR 63.7510(a) to make 
this understanding explicit in the text of our regulations. This change 
was not included among the corrections we proposed in October 2005. 
However, since this revision is based on language in the September 2004 
preamble that has not given rise to any objection, we are adopting this 
correction as part of this final rule.

[[Page 70654]]

D. Consolidated Testing and Emissions Averaging

    The current language for the emissions averaging option in 40 CFR 
63.7522 requires testing of each individual boiler in the averaging 
group. Our intent with regard to the emissions averaging option in the 
final rule was to provide an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly 
compliance alternative. Since testing emissions from a common stack for 
a group of boilers would be equivalent to the average emissions 
calculated from emissions tests on each individual boiler, we are 
amending subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to allow testing of emissions 
at the common stack under specified situations described below.
    Consolidated testing of the common stack must be conducted when 
each boiler is operated under representative testing conditions as 
specified in the National Stack Testing Guidance issued by EPA on 
September 30, 2005.
    The amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 adopted in this action are 
substantially the same as what we proposed in October 2005. However, 
based on public comments, we have modified some of the proposed 
language and added some conforming amendments to other provisions of 
subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that relate to emissions averaging.
1. Compliance With Consolidating Testing
    GE sought clarification on the consolidated testing procedures 
necessary to demonstrate compliance in two different common stack 
situations. In one situation, the exhaust from three existing large 
solid fuel boilers are combined and vented through a common emissions 
control system to a common stack. In the other situation, the exhaust 
from two existing large solid fuel boilers are each individually 
controlled prior to being vented to a common stack. In the revised 
regulatory provisions set forth below, we are amending this final rule 
to clarify how to demonstrate compliance under these two circumstances. 
The final amendments address these two circumstances in the same way 
that we proposed in October 2005.
    In the first situation, a group of units that share a common 
control device before venting to a common stack is treated as a single 
source. In such situations, an operator can demonstrate compliance by 
testing at the common stack without using the emissions averaging 
equations in 40 CFR 63.7522 for each unit or submitting an 
implementation plan. We are also adding language in section 63.7522(k) 
of subpart DDDDD to clarify that the common stack situations described 
above may be treated as a separate single emission point for purpose of 
including these units in an emissions averaging group with other 
existing large solid fuel boilers located at the facility.
    We are adopting a slightly different approach for averaging 
emissions from groups of affected units that vent to a common stack 
through more than one emissions control system. These distinct 
approaches are necessary to ensure that a source with more than one 
emissions control system demonstrates continuous compliance at each 
emissions control system. Where a group of boilers vents to a common 
stack through more than one emission control system, continuous 
compliance will be demonstrated according to the methods specified in 
Table 8 to subpart DDDDD.
2. Monitoring of Common Stack
    In this final action, we are adding an amendment to section 63.7541 
of subpart DDDDD to address the COMS requirements for facilities 
participating in the emissions averaging option. If each of the boilers 
venting to a common stack has an applicable opacity operating limit, a 
dry control system, and no units from other subcategories or 
nonaffected units vent to the common stack, then a single COMS may be 
located in the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack. 
Alternately, if any of the boilers venting to the common stack does not 
have an applicable opacity operating limit, but each of the existing 
solid fuel units is equipped with a dry control system and no 
nonaffected units vent to the common stack, a COMS monitor may be 
located at the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack. 
We amended 40 CFR 63.7541 to allow for a COMS monitor at the common 
stack in this situation.
    We discussed this approach in the October 2005 proposal (70 FR at 
62268), but did not include any regulatory language in that action. 
Commenters requested that we make explicit in our regulations that this 
practice is permissible when sources elect to demonstrate compliance 
using emissions averaging.
3. Emissions Averaging When Units in Different Subcategories Are Ducted 
to Common Stack
    In response to the GE petition for reconsideration, we proposed 
amendments that would limit the emissions averaging provision to common 
stack scenarios that contained solely units in the existing large solid 
fuel subcategory. In this final action, we have decided to expand the 
emissions averaging provision to allow units in the existing large 
solid fuel subcategory to conduct performance tests at the end of a 
common stack configuration with affected units from other subcategories 
and nonaffected units under specific circumstances.
    As a result of public comments submitted, we now recognize that 
affected units from several subcategories (e.g., both gas and solid 
fuel fired units) and nonaffected units are sometimes ducted to a 
common stack. To address these situations, we are adopting a revised 
amendment to the emissions averaging provision in 40 CFR 63.7522 that 
allows consolidated testing of units in the existing large solid fuel 
subcategory as long as the commonly vented units from other 
subcategories and nonaffected units follow specific procedures during 
the consolidated compliance test.
    The emissions averaging provision is only applicable to units in 
the existing large solid fuel subcategory. EPA did not find cause to 
promulgate emissions limitations for many of the subcategories of 
existing units. However, new units are subject to different emissions 
limitations than existing units. These differing emissions limitations 
make it difficult to allow consolidated testing of emissions from 
sources in different subcategories under an emissions averaging 
approach.
    However, to eliminate this obstacle to consolidated testing when 
existing large solid fuel units may share a duct or stack with units in 
other subcategories or nonaffected units covered by another NESHAP 
category, we are requiring facilities to shut down, or vent to a 
different stack, affected boilers or process heaters in other 
subcategories or nonaffected units in other categories prior to 
performing a consolidated compliance test for the units in the large 
solid fuel subcategory. Testing of a common stack in these situations 
will measure the average emissions from the averaging group of existing 
large solid fuel units, just as if each boiler in the large solid fuel 
subcategory was tested individually and their emissions averaged. By 
requiring the affected units from other subcategories or nonaffected 
units to be shut off, or vented to a different stack, during testing, 
the consolidated testing for certain stack configurations allows the 
group of existing large solid fuel boilers to demonstrate initial 
compliance at a lower cost.
    Allowing the testing of a common stack under these conditions also

[[Page 70655]]

satisfies the criteria discussed in the September 2004 preamble to the 
final rule (69 FR 55239) that EPA has generally imposed on the scope 
and nature of emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1) 
No averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging 
between sources that are not part of the same major source, (3) no 
averaging between sources within the same major source that are not 
subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing 
sources and new sources. This final rule fully satisfies each of these 
criteria.
    The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of 
emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory. 
Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during 
compliance testing are not included in the average or co-mingled with 
the emissions that are the focus of the test.
4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision
    As a result of this expansion to the emissions averaging provision, 
we had to establish continuous compliance procedures with this 
provision to address common stack scenarios with units from multiple 
subcategories or nonaffected units. In this final rule, we are also 
amending 40 CFR 63.7541 to establish continuous compliance procedures 
under the emissions averaging provision for common stack configurations 
with different subcategories or nonaffected units. These amendments 
require affected units to maintain 3-hour average parametric limits on 
all the control devices for existing large solid fuel boilers venting 
to a common stack. The parametric limits will ensure that the control 
devices continue to operate under the conditions established during the 
initial compliance test. These amendments establish continuous 
compliance requirements for common stack configurations that were not 
previously eligible to comply with the emissions averaging provision.
5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations
    This final rule includes several additional amendments to 
subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 63.7522 that were recommended 
in public comments. These amendments clarify that, under the emissions 
averaging provision, continuous compliance must be demonstrated at the 
end of every month (12 times per year). In addition, we have made 
several corrections to the formulas used in emissions averaging 
calculations. Additional details on these amendments are reflected in 
the Response-to-Comments document that is available in Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0058.

E. Definitions

    In the October 2005 notice, we proposed to add or amend several 
definitions in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify our intent 
and correct inadvertent omissions. In this final action, we are 
adopting modified versions of several definitions based on public 
comments. In addition, we are promulgating three additional definitions 
to provide additional clarity requested by commenters.
    We have added a definition for ``common stack'' similar to the 
definition provided in 40 CFR part 72 at the request of some of the 
commenters.
    We have also added a definition for ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' since this term is used to define ``equivalent'' as this 
term is used in Table 6 of subpart DDDDD. We are adopting the same 
definition of ``equivalent'' that we proposed, but we have added 
language to Table 6 of subpart DDDDD to clarify that equivalent methods 
may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 at the 
discretion of the source owner or operator.
    The definitions for both ``firetube boiler'' and ``watertube 
boiler'' are amended to include criteria for classifying boilers 
designed with both firetubes and watertubes, commonly referred to as 
``hybrid boilers.'' Based on comments, we are adopting a modified 
definition of firetube boiler to include boilers that utilize a 
containment shell that encloses firetubes and allows the water to 
vaporize and steam to separate. We have also modified the definition of 
watertube boilers that we proposed to include boilers that incorporate 
a steam drum with tubes connected to the drum to separate steam from 
water.
    We have amended the proposed definitions for both small gaseous and 
small liquid fuel subcategories to clarify that these subcategories 
include all firetube boilers, regardless of size, as well as other 
types of boilers with a rated capacity of 10 million MMBtu per hour 
heat input or less. We have amended the definitions to clarify our 
intent that firetube boilers greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input 
are still part of the small subcategory.
    We have also added an amendment to the definitions for both the 
small and large gaseous fuel subcategories to allow for units in these 
two categories to periodically test using liquid fuel as long as the 
tests do not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar 
year. This allowance was adopted because of the need to test an 
emergency fuel in order to ensure that the unit could effectively 
operate using the emergency fuel during a period of gas curtailment. 
California regulations stipulate a 48-hour limit on this periodic 
testing on emergency fuels, and we have adopted their precedent.
    We are also amending the definition of ``fuel type'' in response to 
a comment we received. Questions have been raised on whether we 
intended for units that may burn evidence seized in drug raids as a 
public service for a variety of enforcement agencies to test these 
materials as part of the compliance testing requirements. It is 
reportedly exceedingly difficult to arrange for a test of these 
materials given the security that surrounds them. Also, facilities have 
been approached about burning retired U.S. flags. Burning is the 
preferred mode of disposal of retired U.S. flags. Since we did not 
intend to include contraband materials, or U.S. flags, as a fuel when a 
facility is conducting performance tests or fuel analyses to 
demonstrate compliance, we are amending the definition of ``fuel type'' 
to include the statement ``Contraband, prohibited goods, or retired 
U.S. flags, burned at the request of a government agency, are not 
considered a fuel type for the purpose of this subpart.'' We do not 
classify facilities designed and operated for energy recovery as 
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators if they combust 
small amounts of others materials. (See 70 FR 55568, 55575; September 
22, 2005.)
    A revision to the definition of ``fuel type'' was not included 
among the corrections that we proposed. However, since this amendment 
addresses a de minimis situation that supports law enforcement efforts 
and respect for a national symbol, we are adopting this correction in 
this final action.

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

    We received 17 public comment letters on the proposed rule and 
notice of reconsideration. Complete summaries of all the comments and 
EPA responses are found in the Response-to-Comments document (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section). The most significant comments are 
summarized below.

A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA expand the common 
stack testing option to include common stack configurations with groups 
of boilers from different subcategories or units not subject to the 
boiler NESHAP. Two of these commenters added that in

[[Page 70656]]

many situations the layout of boilers and ductwork to common stacks 
make it impractical to perform emissions testing on each individual 
boiler venting to the common stack due to a lack of appropriate 
sampling location and duct configurations. One commenter (OAR-2002-
0058-0722) added that in order to test each individual unit a source 
would have to build a temporary testing system of stacks and ductwork 
to demonstrate initial compliance, and this temporary system would 
still not be suitable for demonstrating continuous compliance. The 
commenter contended that without expanding the testing to groups of 
boilers from different source categories venting to a common stack, the 
NESHAP would require a source to reconfigure its ductwork and build new 
stacks.
    One commenter approved of EPA's amendments to allow common stack 
performance testing under the circumstances provided in the proposed 
amendments.
    Response: We agree in part with the commenters' recommendation and 
have modified the rule to allow performance testing to be conducted at 
the end of stacks that receive emissions from boilers from different 
subcategories and nonaffected units in other NESHAP categories, as long 
as the emissions from these other units are stopped or redirected as 
described further below. However, we do not consider it appropriate to 
allow averaging of emissions from units in other subcategories or 
nonaffected units or consolidated testing of co-mingled emissions from 
units in other subcategories or nonaffected units. EPA has generally 
imposed limits on emissions averaging programs, which includes no 
averaging between emission units that are not part of the same source 
category. Since these units are generally subject to different 
emissions limitations, averaging or co-mingling of emissions would not 
provide a reliable demonstration of compliance with the applicable 
emissions limitation for those sources in a particular category or 
subcategory.
    Nevertheless, we do consider it appropriate under specified 
conditions described further below to allow testing at the end of the 
common stack for existing large solid fuel units at facilities with 
stack configurations that contain units from other subcategories (e.g., 
gas-fired units) and nonaffected units. EPA has established a clear and 
enforceable method for demonstrating initial, annual, and continuous 
compliance when units of different subcategories and nonaffected units 
vent to a common stack. Further, extending the common stack testing 
option to these stack configurations will not cause adverse effects to 
human health or the environment. The total emissions out of the stack 
will not increase as a result of this extension and compliance with the 
emission limits of each unit feeding the common stack will be 
determined by parametric limits on the control device through which the 
units vent to the common stack.
    Facilities that have common stack configurations consisting of 
units subject to the boiler NESHAP and units from other source 
categories also have the prerogative to petition for alternate testing 
and compliance plans on a site-specific basis.

B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

    Comment: Several commenters suggested an alternative methodology to 
meet the requirements of initial and annual compliance tests for units 
opting to use the emissions averaging provision. These commenters 
suggested that during the initial and subsequent annual compliance 
tests, all boilers venting to the common stack that are not subject to 
emission limits be turned off (i.e. gas-fired units or nonaffected 
units). These commenters suggested that shutting down units of 
different subcategories or nonaffected units would satisfy the 
requirements of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter added that these 
methods will still provide reliable test data to the regulatory 
authorities to demonstrate compliance. One commenter added that since 
many large solid fuel units share a stack with gas-fired units, the 
NESHAP, as proposed in the notice of reconsideration, would require 
individual performance testing on each large solid fuel boiler, which 
would greatly increase the costs of testing compliance and increase 
system downtime.
    Response: We agree that turning off units from other subcategories 
(e.g., gas-fired units) and nonaffected units during the testing 
period, satisfies the requirements of the boiler NESHAP emissions 
averaging provision. Allowing the testing of a common stack, when units 
from other subcategories and nonaffected units are turned off satisfies 
the criteria that EPA has generally imposed on the scope and nature of 
emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1) No averaging 
between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources 
that are not part of the same major source, (3) no averaging between 
sources within the same major source that are not subject to the same 
NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources. 
The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of 
emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory. 
Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during 
compliance testing are not included in the average or co-mingled with 
the emissions that are the focus of the test.
    Facilities that have common stack configurations, with units 
subject to the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units, have the 
prerogative to petition for alternate testing and compliance plans on a 
site-specific basis. The type of testing discussed here is one example 
of an alternate testing and compliance plan that a facility would 
petition for on a site-specific basis. We have adjusted the rule 
language in 40 CFR 63.7522(h) to allow for shutting down units from 
other subcategories and nonaffected units to demonstrate compliance 
with the emissions averaging provision when units belonging to 
different subcategories of the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units vent 
to the same stack as large solid fuel boilers.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that parametric limits be set on 
all control devices used on solid fuel fired units and that these 
parametric limits be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These commenters 
added that parametric limits on the control devices for existing large 
solid-fuel boilers would ensure that these control devices operated 
under the conditions established during the initial compliance test and 
provide a defensible way to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter 
suggested that parametric compliance limits be set on any control 
device in the group of units sharing a common stack, regardless of 
whether the conditions are wet or dry in the stack.
    Response: We agree that setting parametric limits on all control 
devices for existing large solid-fuel boilers venting to a common stack 
is an acceptable method for demonstrating continuous compliance with 
the emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These 
parametric limits are a clear and enforceable method of demonstrating 
compliance. We have adjusted the rule language in 40 CFR 63.7541 to 
allow for a facility to demonstrate continuous compliance under the 
emissions averaging provision by using parametric limits on the control 
devices of existing large solid fuel units venting to a common stack.

[[Page 70657]]

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA allow for a COMS at a 
common stack even when a source does not make use of the emissions 
averaging provision and opts to do performance testing on individual 
boilers. The commenter added that this regulatory flexibility will 
reduce compliance costs and maintain adequate levels of emissions 
monitoring.
    Two commenters requested that EPA clarify 40 CFR 63.7525(b) to 
allow a COMS to be located at the common stack, regardless of whether 
the group of boilers sharing a common stack consists of boilers of 
different subcategories. One commenter suggested that it did not 
believe EPA intended to require a COMS on individual units sharing a 
common stack. The commenter added that it is impractical, due to a lack 
of space or adequate location, to install individual COMS monitors in 
the duct work for groups of boilers that share a common stack. The 
commenter cites 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 
(PS)-1, to reference that in many cases this requirement has been 
satisfied by placing a COMS on the common stack.
    One commenter suggested that language be added to 40 CFR 
63.7522(j)(3) to indicate that a COMS monitor is required at a common 
stack, even when each individual boiler unit has a separate opacity 
operating limit. The commenter is concerned that without additional 
language, 40 CFR 63.7522(j)(3) could be misinterpreted to require a 
COMS in each duct leading to the common stack. The commenter noted that 
although there is discussion of this intent in the preamble (70 FR 
62268), the commenter suggested that there be language added to this 
effect in the actual rule text. The commenter also suggested that 
language be added to 40 CFR 63.7541(a)(2) to clarify that a single COMS 
monitor for a group of units that each vents through a unique control 
system and then to a common stack. The commenter suggested this 
language is necessary so that this group of units is treated similarly 
to a group of units venting through a common control device to a common 
stack with respect to the requirements of a COMS.
    Response: We agree with these suggestions as long as all units 
feeding the common stack are in the existing large solid fuel 
subcategory. The emissions averaging provision was intended to be an 
option for affected facilities to allow for increased regulatory 
flexibility. We reiterate here that if a source chooses to do 
performance testing for HAP emissions at each individual unit, the 
source is still eligible to locate a COMS monitor on the common stack 
as long as all the units feeding the common stack are in the existing 
large solid fuel subcategory.
    We disagree with the commenter's suggestion to allow for a COMS 
monitor to be located at the common stack when groups of boilers from 
different affected subcategories or nonaffected units are feeding the 
stack. We also disagree with allowing a single COMS unit to be placed 
on the common stack if the units feeding the common stack belong to 
other source categories.

C. Definitions

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA modify the 
definitions of firetube and watertube boilers to account for hybrid 
boilers. The commenters suggested that EPA make the distinction between 
the two units based on the location of the containment or steam 
separation system in the unit in order to clarify the basic difference 
between fire tube and water tube units. Three commenters added that 
water tube units incorporate a steam drum, which provides for steam 
separation from water, whereas a fire tube unit uses a containment 
shell, inside which the water vaporizes and steam separates. One 
commenter suggested that a water tube boiler be defined as a boiler 
that has a water tube type of steam drum, with no additional heat 
exchange surface in the form of fire tubes running through the drum. 
The commenter suggested that a fire tube boiler be defined as any 
hybrid type of boiler where steam separation takes place in a vessel 
that also contains fire tubes that provide the major heat input to the 
water. The commenter added that this approach will simplify 
interpretation of this definition. Two commenters requested that EPA 
adopt the following addition to the definition of firetube boiler to 
account for hybrid boilers: ``All owners or operators of hybrid boilers 
that have been registered/certified by the National Board of Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the State as firetube boilers as 
indicated by ``Form P-2'' (Manufacturers Data Report For All Types of 
Boilers Except Watertube and Electric As Required by the Provisions of 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Rules, Section 
I) shall be considered small units for the purpose of this subpart.''
    Response: We agree with the distinction between a firetube and 
watertube boiler using the criteria of whether a unit has a containment 
shell or a steam drum. We consider the ASME Code Rules and Forms to be 
an acceptable and established method for classifying vessel types. We 
have modified the proposed definitions of watertube and firetube 
boilers to allow a facility to classify its hybrid vessel by one of two 
methods: (1) Determining whether or not the unit has a steam drum or 
containment system, or (2) the indication of firetube boiler on the 
ASME P-2 form.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the definition for large 
gaseous fuel units be changed to allow for units to combust oil during 
periods of natural gas supply emergencies or natural gas curtailment. 
The commenters added that if the unit combusts oil for periodic testing 
under these circumstances, this unit should not be automatically 
categorized in the large oil fuel subcategory.
    Response: We agree that it is necessary for gas-fired units that 
are designed for combusting oil during periods of natural gas 
curtailment to periodically tune the unit for proper oil firing and 
combustion to be prepared for such periods. Based on review of current 
regulations in California regarding equipment testing of non-gaseous 
fuel, periodic testing of oil is allowed for a combined total of 48 
hours during any calendar year. This periodic testing for up to 48 
hours, which is in addition to periods of combusting oil during natural 
gas curtailment, will not cause a boiler to be categorized in the oil 
fuel subcategories. We have amended the definitions to clarify that gas 
boilers that fire liquid fuel for the purposes of periodic testing are 
not included in the liquid fuel subcategories.

D. Testing Methods

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA list some specific 
examples of equivalent methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The 
commenters specifically added that since the promulgation of the 
NESHAP, EPA has received and approved many site-specific requests for 
the use ``equivalent'' methods. The commenters requested that any 
approved methods be added to Table 6.
    Another commenter disagreed with deleting test method ASTM D3684-01 
from Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The commenter added that this test 
method should be retained in Table 6, and the final revised table 
should indicate that this test method is applicable for determining 
both arsenic and selenium.
    Two commenters requested that the latest revisions of following 
test methods be listed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD: ASTM D3684 for coal 
mercury analysis, ASTM D3683 for coal total selected metals, and ASTM 
D4208 for coal chlorine content. These

[[Page 70658]]

commenters added that these methods have a long history as established 
standard methods. By adding these methods to Table 6, sources or 
testing companies would not have to petition for approval of these 
established methods. These commenters also added that many coal 
chlorine levels exceed the upper bound (1136 parts per million) on the 
concentration range for repeatability and reproducibility on ASTM 
D6721, and that ASTM D4208 is a more appropriate testing method on 
coals with high chlorine concentrations.
    Two commenters recommended that EPA provide authority to the States 
for approving equivalent testing methods that have already been 
accepted by EPA on multiple similar site-specific requests. The 
commenters added that providing authority to the States is an efficient 
way to determine approved equivalent testing methods.
    Response: With this action, we have clarified the definition of 
equivalent method. Equivalent methods are voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS) or EPA methods which are applicable to the fuel type or target 
analyte being measured. Although we disagree with adding a complete 
list of equivalent methods already approved to the final rule itself, 
we have provided a list of these previously approved methods in the 
preamble to the final rule. We have also added a definition of VCS to 
the final rule to help clarify what equivalent methods are. Equivalent 
methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 to 
subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or operator. 
Therefore, publishing a list of or adding to the list of approved 
methods is not necessary. Similarly, State or EPA approval of 
equivalent methods is not necessary.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it is likely to 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action imposes no new information collection 
requirements on the industry. Because there is no additional burden on 
the industry as a result of the final rule amendments, the information 
collection request has not been revised. OMB has previously approved 
the information collection requirements contained in the existing 
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0551 (EPA 
No. 2028.02). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request 
(ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. 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 impact of this final rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
country, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is 
not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has 
determined that none of the small entities will experience a 
significant impact because the final rule imposes no additional 
regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private section, of $100 million or more in 
any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, for least-burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and

[[Page 70659]]

informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. Although the original NESHAP had annualized costs 
estimated to range from $690 to $860 million (depending on the number 
of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the health-based 
compliance alternatives), this final rule does not add new requirements 
that would increase this cost. Thus, this final rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA 
has determined that this final rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply 
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this 
final rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This final rule 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. The requirements discussed in 
this action will not supersede State regulations that are more 
stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final 
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or 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, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because EPA 
does not have reason to feel that the environmental health or safety 
risks associated with the emissions addressed by this action presents a 
disproportionate risk to children. This demonstration is based on the 
fact that this action does not affect the emissions limits contained in 
this final rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy actions'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this 
action is not likely to have any adverse energy effect.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the final rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwi