[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34548-34572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11296]



[[Page 34547]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test 
Cells/Stands; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 34548]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7207-8]
RIN 2060-A174


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine 
Test Cells/Stands

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for engine test cells/stands. We have 
identified engine test cells/stands as major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) such as toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, and 1,3-
butadiene. These proposed NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) which requires all major sources of HAP to meet 
emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). These proposed standards will protect public 
health by reducing exposure to air pollution.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before July 15, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by June 3, 2002, we will hold a public hearing on June 
13, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-29, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-29, 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. We request that a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. in our Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-98-29 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected 
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jaime Pagan, Combustion Group, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5340; facsimile number 
(919) 541-0942; electronic mail (e-mail) address 
``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file 
to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems or on 
disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-98-29. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Jaime Pagan, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, 
Room 740B, Durham NC 27701. We will disclose information identified as 
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when we 
receive it, the information may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mrs. 
Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5578 
at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing. 
Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also call 
Mrs. Kelly Hayes to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. 
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to 
present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission 
standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information we considered in the development of this proposed rule. The 
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the 
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members 
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their 
preambles, the contents of the docket (except for interagency review 
materials) will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) Materials related to this 
proposed rule are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the proposed rule will be posted 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. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    A list of combustion related rules is available on the Combustion 
Group Website on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/combust/list.html. You may obtain background information, technical documents, 
and a docket index on these combustion related rules.
    Regulated Entities. Subcategories and entities potentially 
regulated by this action include those listed in Table 1 of this 
preamble. In general, engine test cells/stands are covered under the 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 
However, cells/stands classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be 
subject to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability 
criteria. Not all cells/stands classified under the SIC and NAICS codes 
in Table 1 of this preamble will be subject to the proposed standards 
because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of 
the proposed NESHAP for engine test cells/stands.

[[Page 34549]]



                         Table 1.--Subcategories Potentially Regulated by This Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Examples of regulated
  Test cells/stands used for testing          SIC codes               NAICS codes                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Combustion Engines with       3531, 3519, 3523, 3559,  333120, 333618, 333111,  Test cells/stands used
 rated power of 25 horsepower (hp)      3599, 3621, 3711,        333319, 335312,          for testing internal
 (19 kilowatts (kW)) or more.           3714, 4226, 4512,        336111, 336120,          combustion engines
                                        5541, 7538, 7539,        336112, 336992,          with rated power of 25
                                        8299, 8711, 8731,        336312, 336350,          hp (19 kW) or more.
                                        8734, 8741.              481111, 811111,
                                                                 811118, 611692, 54171,
                                                                 541380.
Internal Combustion Engines with       3519, 3621, 3524, 8734.  333618, 336399, 335312,  Test cells/stands used
 rated power of less than 25 hp (19                              332212, 333112, 541380.  for testing internal
 kW).                                                                                     combustion engines
                                                                                          with rated power of
                                                                                          less than 25 hp (19
                                                                                          kW).
Combustion Turbine Engines...........  3511, 3566, 3721, 3724,  333611, 333612, 336411,  Test cells/stands used
                                        4512, 4581, 7699, 9661.  336412, 481111,          for testing combustion
                                                                 488190, 811310,          turbine engines.
                                                                 811411, 92711.
Rocket Engines.......................  3724, 3761, 3764, 9661,  336412, 336414, 336415,  Test cells/stands used
                                        9711.                    54171, 92711, 92811.     for testing rocket
                                                                                          engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your engine test cell/stand is regulated 
by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 
Sec. 63.9285 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria did we use in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the health effects associated with HAP from engine 
test cells/stands?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Am I subject to this proposed rule?
    B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this 
proposed rule?
    C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are 
the emissions?
    D. What are the emission limitations?
    E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
    F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
    G. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure 
low concentrations of CO?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category and any subcategories?
    B. What about engine test cells/stands located at area sources?
    C. What is the affected source?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
emission limitations?
    E. How did we select the format of the standard?
    F. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
    G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
    H. How did we select the monitoring and testing methods?
    I. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 
impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Engine test 
facilities were listed as a source category under the fuel combustion 
industry group, and rocket engine test firing was listed as a source 
category under the miscellaneous processes industry group in the 
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today, we are 
combining these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the 
fuel combustion industry group and renaming the source category as 
engine test cells/stands. The next revision to the source category list 
under section 112 which is published in the Federal Register will 
reflect this change. Major sources of HAP are those that have the 
potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr 
of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Did We Use in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or

[[Page 34550]]

subcategory. For new sources, the MACT standards cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources 
can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot 
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Engine Test 
Cells/Stands?

    Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP 
show that several HAP are emitted from engine test cells/stands. These 
HAP emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds 
contained in the fuel burned. Numerous HAP are emitted from combustion 
in engine test cells/stands; examples include toluene, benzene, mixed 
xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene.
    The health effect of primary concern for toluene is dysfunction of 
the central nervous system (CNS). Toluene vapor also causes narcosis. 
Controlled exposure of human subjects produced mild fatigue, weakness, 
confusion, lacrimation, and paresthesia; at higher exposure levels 
there were also euphoria, headache, dizziness, dilated pupils, and 
nausea. After effects included nervousness, muscular fatigue, and 
insomnia persisting for several days. Acute exposure may cause 
irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It may also cause 
fatigue, weakness, confusion, headache, and drowsiness. Very high 
concentrations may cause unconsciousness and death.
    Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The health effects of benzene 
include nerve inflammation, CNS depression, and cardiac sensitization. 
Chronic exposure to benzene can cause fatigue, nervousness, 
irritability, blurred vision, and labored breathing and has produced 
anorexia and irreversible injury to the blood-forming organs; effects 
include aplastic anemia and leukemia. Acute exposure can cause 
dizziness, euphoria, giddiness, headache, nausea, staggering gait, 
weakness, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, pulmonary edema, 
pneumonia, gastrointestinal irritation, convulsions, and paralysis. 
Benzene can also cause irritation to the skin, eyes, and mucous 
membranes.
    Acute inhalation exposure to mixed xylenes in humans results in 
irritation of the nose and throat, gastrointestinal effects such as 
nausea, vomiting, and gastric irritation, mild transient eye 
irritation, and neurological effects. Chronic inhalation exposure of 
humans to mixed xylenes results primarily in CNS effects, such as 
headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors and incoordination. Other effects 
noted include labored breathing and impaired pulmonary function, 
increased heart palpitation, severe chest pain and an abnormal 
electrocardiogram, and possible effects on blood and kidneys.
    Acute exposure to 1,3-butadiene by inhalation in humans results in 
irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs, and causes 
neurological effects such as blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and 
vertigo. Epidemiological studies have reported a possible association 
between 1,3-butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases. The 
Department of Health and Human Services has determined that 1,3-
butadiene may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen. This is 
based on animal studies that found increases in a variety of tumor 
types from exposure to 1,3-butadiene. Studies on workers are 
inconclusive because the workers were exposed to other chemicals in 
addition to 1,3-butadiene.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Am I Subject to This Proposed Rule?

    This proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate an engine 
test cell/stand which is located at a major source of HAP emissions. An 
engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing uninstalled 
stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines. A major source of 
HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit 
any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per year 
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or 
more per year.
    Each new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more 
which is located at a major source of HAP emissions must comply with 
the requirements in this proposed rule. New or reconstructed test 
cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated 
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) are not required to comply with the 
emission limitation in this proposed rule, but are required to submit 
an Initial Notification upon startup of the test cells/stands.
    New or reconstructed test cells/stands used for testing combustion 
turbine engines or new or reconstructed test cells/stands used for 
testing rocket engines are not required to comply with the emission 
limitation or the recordkeeping or reporting requirements in this 
proposed rule.
    Existing engine test cells/stands that are located at major sources 
of HAP emissions are not required to comply with the emission 
limitation or the recordkeeping or reporting requirements in this 
proposed rule.
    This proposed rule also does not apply to engine test cells/stands 
that are located at area sources of HAP emissions. An area source is 
any source that is not a major source of HAP emissions.

B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by This 
Proposed Rule?

    This proposed rule covers four subcategories of engine test cells/
stands located at major source facilities: (1) Cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) 
or more, (2) cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines 
with rated power of less than 25 hp, (3) cells/stands used for testing 
combustion turbine engines, and (4) cells/stands used for testing 
rocket engines. The rated power criteria for distinguishing between the 
two internal combustion engine subcategories is based on the largest 
engine (in terms of rated power) that is tested in the test cell/stand.

C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?

    The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of 
fuels in the engines being tested in the test cells/stands. Some of the 
HAP present in the exhaust gases from engine test cells/stands are 
toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations?

    As the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed test cell/stand 
used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with 
rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and located at a major source of 
HAP emissions, you must comply with one of the following two emission 
limitations by [3 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

[[Page 34551]]

RULE IN THE Federal Register] (or upon startup if you start up your 
engine test cell/stand after [3 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register]: (1) Reduce CO emissions in the exhaust 
from the new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand to 5 parts per 
million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) or less, at 15 percent oxygen 
(O2) content; or (2) reduce CO emissions in the exhaust from 
the new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand by 99.9 percent or 
more. Existing test cells/stands used in whole or in part for testing 
internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more 
and located at a major source of HAP emissions are not required to 
comply with the emission limitations.
    Finally, as mentioned earlier, new or reconstructed test cells/
stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power 
of less than 25 hp (19 kW), new or reconstructed test cells/stands used 
for testing combustion turbine engines, and new or reconstructed test 
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are not required to comply 
with either emission limitation. In addition, neither existing test 
cells/stands located at major sources of HAP emissions nor new, 
reconstructed, or existing test cells/stands located at area sources of 
HAP emissions are required to comply with the emission limitations.

E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    Your initial compliance requirements are different depending on 
whether you demonstrate compliance with the outlet CO concentration 
emission limitation or the percent CO reduction emission limitation. If 
you choose to comply with the outlet CO concentration emission 
limitation, you must install a CEMS to measure CO and O2 at 
the outlet of the test cell/stand or emission control device. To 
demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct an initial performance 
evaluation using Performance Specifications (PS) 3 and PS4A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B. This initial performance evaluation demonstrates 
that your CEMS is working properly. You must demonstrate that the 
outlet concentration of CO emissions from the test cell/stand or 
emission control device is 5 ppmvd or less, corrected to 15 percent 
O2 content, using the first 4-hour rolling average after a 
successful performance evaluation.
    If you comply with the percent reduction emission limitation, you 
must install two CEMS to measure CO and O2 simultaneously at 
the inlet and outlet of the emission control device. You must conduct 
an initial performance evaluation using PS3 and PS4A of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B. The initial performance evaluation demonstrates that your 
CEMS are working properly. You must demonstrate that the reduction in 
CO emissions is at least 99.9 percent using the first 4-hour rolling 
average after a successful performance evaluation. Your inlet and 
outlet measurements must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent 
O2 content.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

    Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to engine 
test cells/stands required to comply with the applicable emission 
limitation. You are required to comply with the applicable emission 
limitation at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
of your engine test cell/stand. You must operate and maintain your air 
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment according to good 
air pollution control practices at all times, including startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction. You must conduct monitoring at all times 
that the engine test cell/stand is in operation except during periods 
of malfunction of the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs and 
quality assurance or control activities, such as calibration drift 
checks.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the outlet CO 
concentration emission limitation, you must calibrate and operate your 
CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must 
continuously monitor and record the CO and O2 concentrations 
at the outlet of the test cell/stand or emission control device and 
calculate the CO emission concentration for each hour. Then, the hourly 
CO emission concentrations for each hour of the 4-hour compliance 
period are averaged together. The outlet CO emission concentration must 
be 5 ppmvd or less, corrected to 15 percent O2 content, 
based on the 4-hour rolling average, averaged every hour.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the percent reduction 
emission limitation, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS according 
to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously monitor and 
record the CO and O2 concentration before and after the 
emission control device and calculate the percent reduction in CO 
emissions hourly. The reduction in CO emissions must be 99.9 percent or 
more, based on a rolling 4-hour average, averaged every hour.
    For both emission limitations, you must also follow Procedure 1 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix F, to verify that the CEMS is working properly 
over time.

G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available to Measure Low 
Concentrations of CO?

    Continuous emission monitoring systems are available which can 
measure CO emissions accurately at the low concentrations found in the 
exhaust stream of an engine test cell/stand following an emission 
control device. Our performance specification for CO CEMS (PS4A) of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, however, has not been updated recently and 
does not reflect the performance capabilities of newer systems. We are 
currently undertaking a review of PS4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
for CO CEMS and, in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments 
on the performance capabilities of CO CEMS and their ability to measure 
accurately the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of 
an engine test cell/stand following an emission control device.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?

    You must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an 
initial notification, notification of performance evaluation, and a 
notification of compliance status for each engine test cell/stand 
required to comply with the emission limitations.
    You must submit an initial notification for each new or 
reconstructed test cell/stand located at a major source of HAP 
emissions used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated 
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW).
    You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are 
in compliance with the applicable emission limitation. Your records 
must be in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must 
also keep each record for 5 years following the date of each 
occurrence, measurement, maintenance, report, or record. Records must 
remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained off site 
for the remaining 3 years.
    You must submit a compliance report semiannually for each engine 
test cell/stand required to comply with the applicable emission 
limitation. This report must contain the company name and address, a 
statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, a 
statement of compliance, or documentation of any deviation from

[[Page 34552]]

the requirements of this proposed rule during the reporting period.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?

    Engine test cells/stands can be major sources of HAP emissions and, 
as a result, we listed them as a major source category for regulatory 
development under section 112 of the CAA. Section 112 of the CAA allows 
us to establish subcategories within a source category for the purpose 
of regulation. Consequently, we evaluated several criteria associated 
with engine test cells/stands which might serve as potential 
subcategories.
    We identified four subcategories of engine test cells/stands 
located at major source facilities: (1) Test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) 
or more, (2) test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), (3) test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines, and (4) test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines.
    Internal combustion engines, which can be classified as 
reciprocating or rotary, convert thermal energy into mechanical energy. 
In an internal combustion engine, a combustible fuel-air mixture is 
intermittently ignited and combusted in a confined space. The force 
exerted by the expanding gases from this combustion is used to turn a 
shaft and provide mechanical power.
    An internal combustion engine intakes a mixture of fuel and air, 
the mixture is ignited and combusted, and the combustion gases are 
exhausted from the engine. This cycle of intake, ignition/combustion, 
and exhaust is repeated over and over.
    The cyclical nature of the combustion process in an internal 
combustion engine is quite different from the combustion processes in 
combustion turbine and rocket engines, where the combustion process is 
more continuous in nature. Therefore, test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines are considered a separate 
subcategory.
    Internal combustion engines are used for a wide range of 
applications, including motor vehicles (automobiles and motorcycles), 
marine, heavy-duty diesel (trucks and buses), locomotive, and a wide 
variety of nonroad equipment (agriculture, construction, general 
industrial, lawn and garden, utility, material handling, electric power 
generation, and along gas and oil pipelines). Internal combustion 
engines range in size from a rated power of less than one hp to more 
than 15,000 hp.
    Engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) generally 
include those used in handheld equipment (chainsaws, string trimmers, 
and blowers) and lawn and garden equipment. Engines with a rated power 
of 25 hp (19 kW) or more, on the other hand, generally include those 
used in automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, 
forklifts, generators, compressors, snowmobiles, airport ground-service 
equipment, marine engines, heavy-duty construction equipment, electric 
power generation, etc. While not perfect, a rated power of 25 hp (19 
kW) generally serves to distinguish between smaller internal combustion 
engines, which tend to be used in handheld equipment, and larger 
internal combustion engines, which tend to be used in non-handheld 
equipment. In addition, internal combustion engines with a rated power 
of less than 25 hp (19 kW) generally use gasoline as the primary fuel, 
whereas larger internal combustion engines can use a wide variety of 
fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, liquified petroleum 
gas, sewage (digester) gas, or landfill gases.
    These factors suggest that internal combustion engines with a rated 
power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more should be considered a separate 
subcategory from internal combustion engines with a rated power of less 
than 25 hp (19 kW). Indeed, the advance notice of rulemaking for 
Nonroad Engines and Highway Motorcycles (65 FR 76796, December 7, 2000) 
and the Nonroad Handheld Spark-Ignition Engines rulemaking (65 FR 
24267, April 25, 2000), used a rated power criteria of 25 hp (19 kW) to 
distinguish between larger engines and smaller engines. Thus, a rated 
power of 25 hp (19 kW) provides an effective way of dividing internal 
combustion engines into two subcategories which recognizes the 
significant differences between larger and smaller engines.
    Consequently, test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and test 
cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated 
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) are considered two separate 
subcategories of test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion 
engines.
    In addition to these two subcategories of engine test cells/stands, 
we identified test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine 
engines as a third subcategory. Combustion turbine engines are fuel-
fired devices in which a continuous stream of hot combustion gases 
passes through and turns a turbine rotor that produces shaft power. 
Depending on whether or not the heat can be utilized, the hot exhaust 
gases are either emitted directly to the atmosphere or passed through a 
heat recovery device which extracts excess heat from the exhaust gases. 
Applications for these types of engines include aircraft (including 
turbines, turboprops, turbofans, turbojets, and propfans), other 
military applications (tanks and ships), auxiliary power units, power 
and electric generation, pumping gas or other fluids (e.g., pipelines), 
and pneumatic machinery.
    In general, combustion turbine engines have much higher power 
ratings (e.g., in the range of 500 hp to 240,000 hp or 373 kW to 
178,968 kW) and require much larger volumes of air to operate than 
internal combustion engines. As a result, the volumes of exhaust from 
test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines are 
substantially greater than those from test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines. A typical jet engine combustion 
turbine, for example, with a rated power of 4,600 hp (3,500 kW) 
requires air flows of approximately 125,000 dry standard cubic feet per 
minute (dscfm), and a large power generation combustion turbine engine 
with a rated power of 200,000 hp (150 megawatts (MW)) can require air 
flows of as much as 2 million dscfm, compared to a typical airflow of 
500 dscfm for an automobile engine. Also, most combustion turbine 
engines burn natural gas or jet fuel, while, as mentioned above, the 
larger internal combustion engines can burn a wide variety of fuels, 
and the smaller internal combustion engines generally burn gasoline. In 
addition, separate test cells/stands are used for testing internal 
combustion engines and combustion turbine engines. Consequently, test 
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines are considered 
a separate subcategory.
    Lastly, we identified test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines as a fourth subcategory. Rocket engines are used to launch or 
propel rockets and missiles through the air or into space. The working 
fluid expelled from a rocket-propelled vehicle is usually a hot, 
burning gas resulting from the combustion of chemical propellants. The 
hot reaction-product gases are ejected at a high velocity to impart 
momentum to the rocket vehicle system. Propellants are of several 
different types, classified according to their chemical and physical 
properties and the rocket engine type. Liquid

[[Page 34553]]

propellants are either expelled from the tanks by high pressure gases 
or are fed by pumps into a thrust chamber, where they react or burn. 
Solid propellants look like masses of soft plastic and burn smoothly on 
the exposed surfaces when ignited.
    Not only are the fuels used in rocket engines quite different from 
other engine subcategories, but the volumetric energy release 
associated with these fuels are orders of magnitude higher than those 
used in either combustion turbine engines or internal combustion 
engines. This produces much greater temperatures and pressures in the 
combustion chambers and releases a much greater volume of exhaust. 
Consequently, test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are 
considered a separate subcategory.

B. What About Engine Test Cells/Stands Located at Area Sources?

    This proposed rule does not apply to engine test cells/stands 
located at area sources of HAP emissions. In developing our Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38705, July 19, 1999), we identified area 
sources we believe warrant regulation to protect the environment and 
the public health and to satisfy the statutory requirements in section 
112 of the CAA pertaining to area sources. Engine test cells/stands 
located at area sources were not included on that list and as a result, 
this proposed rule does not apply to engine test cells/stands located 
at area sources.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    This proposed rule applies to each affected source, which is 
defined as any existing, new, or reconstructed engine test cell/stand 
used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) 
engines that is located at a major source of HAP emissions.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission 
Limitations?

    To determine the basis and level of the proposed emission 
limitations, we relied primarily on two sources: a MACT database and 
HAP emissions test reports. The MACT database is a summary of the 
information collected through an information collection request (ICR) 
for engine test cells/stands located at major and synthetic minor 
sources of HAP emissions. The HAP emissions test reports were collected 
from engine test facilities.
    As established in section 112 of the CAA, MACT standards must be no 
less stringent than the MACT floor, which for existing sources is the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources. For new sources, the MACT floor is defined as the 
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source.
1. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Internal Combustion Engines of 25 
hp (19 kW) or More
    To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more, we used 
data from the MACT database. The database contains information on 
approximately 1,093 test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more from 
major source and synthetic minor facilities. Since this number includes 
1,055 test cells/stands from major source facilities and we estimate 
the total number of test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located 
at major source facilities to be about 1,995, we estimate that the MACT 
database represents approximately 52 percent of test cells/stands used 
for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 
kW) or more located at major source facilities in the United States. We 
consider the information contained in the MACT database to be 
representative of all test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located 
at major source facilities.
    Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on 
the use of various emission control methods to reduce HAP emissions. 
First, we examined the use of control technology. Oxidation emission 
control devices, such as thermal and catalytic oxidizers, have been 
shown to reduce HAP emissions from test cells/stands used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or 
more. These oxidation emission control devices have been installed to 
reduce CO emissions, but they also serve to reduce HAP emissions. Only 
5 percent of existing test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located 
at major source facilities, however, are equipped with oxidation 
emission control devices.
    Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to 
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State 
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands. 
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from 
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State 
regulations or permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
    We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and 
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no 
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice 
standards'' in the MACT database and a review of the general operation 
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating 
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded 
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards can 
be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies, State regulations or permits, or good operating 
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other 
alternatives, such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in 
lower HAP emissions (e.g., switching from diesel fuel to gasoline) 
might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine testing, however, is 
to simulate the operation of a specific type of engine in a certain 
environment. This may be to confirm that the engine was assembled 
correctly and will function as intended. In other cases, engine testing 
may be conducted to measure or test the durability or performance of an 
engine, a new component within an engine, or a new engine design, all 
within the context of research and development.
    The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part 
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability 
of a new diesel engine design by burning gasoline in the engine, for 
example, nor could one test the performance and durability of a new 
gasoline engine design by burning diesel fuel in the engine. Use of a 
specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions, therefore, is not a viable 
emission control alternative for engine testing; indeed, such an 
alternative would defeat the very purpose of engine testing. For this 
reason, we concluded that use of a specific fuel cannot be used to 
identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
    Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we 
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) 
or more located at major sources is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing 
internal

[[Page 34554]]

combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located 
at major source facilities, we evaluated one regulatory option more 
stringent than the MACT floor. This regulatory option was the use of 
oxidation emission control devices. We also reconsidered the 
alternatives mentioned above, such as reviewing State permits and 
regulations, good operating practices and work practice standards, and 
using different fuels (also referred to as fuel switching). Again, we 
concluded that they are not viable options for MACT.
    We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the 
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced associated with the use of 
oxidation emission control devices. Those analyses are shown in a 
memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we 
considered the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and 
energy requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as 
potential water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the 
increased energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements 
negligible, we concluded that costs associated with this regulatory 
option were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP 
emissions that would result.
    We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory options. 
Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT floor. 
Consequently, we concluded that MACT for existing test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 
hp (19 kW) or more located at major source facilities is no reduction 
in HAP emissions.
    New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 
hp (19 kW) or more located at major source facilities, we examined the 
MACT database and the emission test reports. As mentioned earlier, 
about 5 percent of existing test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more 
currently use oxidation emission control devices.
    We also considered whether the alternatives mentioned above, such 
as reviewing State permits and regulations, good operating practices 
and work practice standards, and using different fuels, which we 
considered to identify a MACT floor for existing test cells/stands, 
might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/stands. However, 
we concluded that just as none of those alternatives could be used to 
identify a MACT floor for existing engine test cells/stands, neither 
could they be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/
stands.
    Therefore, we concluded that the HAP emission limitation associated 
with the use of oxidation emission control devices is the MACT floor 
for new test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines 
with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located at major source 
facilities.
    To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or 
more, we considered options more stringent than the MACT floor, such as 
good operating practices and work practice standards, fuel switching, 
and the review of State permits and regulations to determine if other 
methods of control were being used. We are unaware of any option, 
including the alternatives just mentioned, which could reduce HAP 
emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more beyond that 
obtained through the use of an oxidation emission control device.
    Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT 
floor. As a result, MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more 
is the HAP emission level associated with the use of oxidation emission 
control devices.
    After establishing this basis for MACT, we determined the 
achievable emission limitation based on the data available from HAP 
emission test reports of the performance of oxidation emission control 
devices operating on engine test cells/stands. We examined the emission 
control efficiencies achieved by oxidation emission control devices and 
concluded that CO emission reductions are a good surrogate for HAP 
emissions reductions. In addition, we concluded that oxidation emission 
control devices can reduce CO emissions to 5 ppmvd or less, corrected 
to 15 percent O2 content, while achieving a CO reduction 
efficiency of 99.9 percent or more. Thus, we are proposing the 
following MACT emission limitation for test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) 
or more: an outlet CO emissions concentration of 5 ppmvd or less, 
corrected to 15 percent O2 content; or a reduction in CO 
emissions of 99.9 percent or more.
2. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Internal Combustion Engines of 
Less Than 25 hp (19 kW)
    To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), we 
used data from the MACT database. The database contains information on 
307 test cells/stands used exclusively for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) from major source 
and synthetic minor source facilities. Since this number includes 219 
test cells/stands from major source facilities, and we estimate the 
number of test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major 
source facilities to be about 403, we estimate this database represents 
about 54 percent of test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) 
located at major source facilities in the United States. We consider 
the information contained in the MACT database to be representative of 
all test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with 
a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source 
facilities.
    Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on 
the use of various control methods to reduce HAP emissions. First, we 
examined the use of control technology. No existing test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less 
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities are equipped with 
emission control technologies.
    Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to 
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State 
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands. 
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from 
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State 
regulations and permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
    We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and 
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no 
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice 
standards'' in the MACT database, and a review of the general operation 
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating 
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded 
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards

[[Page 34555]]

can be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies, State regulations and permits, or good operating 
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other 
alternatives, such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in 
lower HAP emissions (e.g., switching from diesel fuel to gasoline) 
might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine testing, however, is 
to simulate the operation of a specific type of engine in a certain 
environment, which could be to confirm that the engine was assembled 
correctly and will function as intended. In other cases, engine testing 
may be conducted to measure or test the durability or performance of an 
engine, a new component within an engine, or a new engine design, all 
within the context of research and development.
    The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part 
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability 
of a new diesel engine design by burning gasoline in the engine, for 
example, nor could one test the performance and durability of a new 
gasoline engine design by burning diesel fuel in the engine. Use of a 
specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions, therefore, is not a viable 
emission control alternative for engine testing; indeed, such an 
alternative would defeat the very purpose of engine testing. For that 
reason, we concluded that use of a specific fuel cannot be used to 
identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
    Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we 
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 
hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP 
emissions.
    To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 
kW) located at major source facilities, we evaluated regulatory options 
more stringent than the MACT floor. We considered the use of oxidation 
emission control devices as an emission control technology which could 
serve as the basis for MACT for existing sources. We also reconsidered 
alternatives, such as good operating practices and work practice 
standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and 
regulations, and again concluded they are not viable options for MACT. 
We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the 
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for this regulatory option. 
Those analyses are shown in a memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled 
``Control Costs.'' In addition, we considered the non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements associated 
with this regulatory option, such as potential water pollution and 
solid waste disposal impacts and the increased energy consumption. 
Although we considered the non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements negligible, we concluded that costs 
associated with this regulatory option were unreasonable in light of 
the small reductions in HAP emissions that would result.
    We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory options. 
Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT floor. 
Consequently, we concluded that MACT for existing test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less 
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no reduction 
in HAP emissions.
    New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less 
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities, we also examined 
the MACT database. As mentioned earlier, no existing test cells/stands 
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less 
than 25 hp (19 kW) currently use emission control devices.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies, such as oxidation emission control systems, might 
identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether any of the 
alternatives outlined above (e.g., good operating practices and work 
practice standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and 
regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT floor for existing 
engine test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines 
with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), might identify a MACT 
floor for new engine test cells/stands used for testing internal 
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW). 
Again, we concluded that none of the alternatives could be used to 
identify a MACT floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for 
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 
hp (19 kW).
    Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power 
of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no 
reduction in HAP emissions.
    To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing 
internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 
kW), we evaluated regulatory options more stringent than the MACT 
floor. We considered the use of oxidation emission control devices as 
an emission control technology which could serve as the basis for MACT 
for new sources. We also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above 
(e.g., good operating practices and work practice standards, fuel 
switching, and the review of State permits and regulations), which we 
considered for identifying a MACT floor, but for the reasons also 
discussed above, we concluded they are not viable options for MACT. We 
considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the 
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced associated with the option of 
adding oxidation emission control devices. In addition, we considered 
the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as potential 
water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the increased 
energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements negligible, we 
concluded that costs associated with adding an oxidation emission 
control device were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in 
HAP emissions that would result. We were unable to identify any other 
feasible regulatory options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for new 
sources is the MACT floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new 
test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a 
rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source 
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
3. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Combustion Turbine Engines
    To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing combustion 
turbine engines, we used data from the MACT database. The database 
contains information on 287 test cells/stands used for testing 
combustion turbine engines from major source and synthetic minor source 
facilities. Since this number includes 252 test cells/stands from major 
source facilities, and we estimate the number of test cells/stands used 
for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source 
facilities to be about 328, we estimate this database represents about 
77 percent of

[[Page 34556]]

test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located 
at major source facilities in the United States. We consider the 
information contained in the MACT database to be representative of all 
test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located 
at major source facilities.
    Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on 
the use of various emission control methods to reduce HAP emissions. 
First, we examined the use of control technology. No existing test 
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located at 
major source facilities are equipped with emission control 
technologies.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies, such as oxidation emission control systems, might 
identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether any of the 
alternatives mentioned above (e.g. good operating practices and work 
practice standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and 
regulations) might identify a MACT floor for existing engine test 
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines. We were 
unable to find any good operating practices or work practice standards 
that result in HAP reductions. Similarly, fuel switching is not a 
viable alternative since the engine performance and durability being 
measured to simulate actual in-use conditions can be affected by the 
type of fuel used. Finally, as we mentioned before, our review of State 
permits and regulations did not identify any emission control 
strategies for that type of source. Thus, we conclude again that none 
of those alternatives could be used to help us identify a MACT floor 
for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing combustion 
turbine engines.
    Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we 
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for 
testing combustion turbine engines located at major source facilities 
is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing 
combustion turbine engines located at major source facilities, we 
evaluated regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor. The 
only control technology currently proven to reduce HAP emissions from 
combustion turbine engines is an oxidation catalyst emission control 
device, such as a CO oxidation catalyst. These control devices are used 
to reduce CO emissions and are currently installed on several 
stationary combustion turbine engines. As a result, we concluded they 
could be used on test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine 
engines.
    We also reconsidered the same alternatives that we looked at for 
identifying a MACT floor (e.g., fuel switching, good operating 
practices and work practice standards, and the review of State permits 
and regulations), and again concluded they are not viable options for 
MACT. We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the 
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for the use of an oxidation 
catalyst emission control device. Those analyses are shown in a 
memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we 
considered the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and 
energy requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as 
potential water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the 
increased energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements 
negligible, we concluded that the costs associated with this regulatory 
option were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP 
emissions that would result. We were unable to identify any other 
feasible regulatory options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing 
sources is the MACT floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for 
existing test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines 
located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands 
used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source 
facilities, we also examined the MACT database. As mentioned earlier, 
no existing test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine 
engines currently use emission control devices.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies might identify a MACT floor, we also considered 
whether any of the alternatives outlined above (e.g., fuel switching, 
good operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of 
State permits and regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT 
floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing combustion 
turbine engines, might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines. We were unable to 
find any good operating practices or work practice standards that 
result in HAP reductions. Similarly, fuel switching is not a viable 
alternative since the engine performance and durability being measured 
to simulate actual in-use conditions can be affected by the type of 
fuel used. Finally, as we mentioned before, our review of State permits 
and regulations did not identify any emission control strategies for 
that type of source. Thus, we have concluded that none of those 
alternatives could be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test 
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines.
    Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major 
source facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing 
combustion turbine engines, we evaluated regulatory options more 
stringent than the MACT floor. We again considered the use of an 
oxidation catalyst emission control device as an emission control 
technology which could serve as the basis for MACT for new sources. We 
also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above (e.g., fuel 
switching, good operating practices and work practice standards, and 
the review of State permits and regulations), which we considered for 
identifying a MACT floor, but for the same reasons, we concluded they 
are not viable options for MACT. We considered the costs, the reduction 
in HAP emissions, and the incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for 
this regulatory option. Those analyses are shown in a memorandum in 
Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we considered 
the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as potential 
water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the increased 
energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements negligible, we 
concluded that costs associated with this regulatory option were 
unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP emissions that 
would result. We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory 
options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT 
floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new test cells/stands 
used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source 
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.

[[Page 34557]]

4. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Rocket Engines
    To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines, we used data from the MACT database. The database contains 
information on 99 test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines 
from major source and synthetic minor source facilities. Since this 
number includes 75 test cells/stands from major source facilities and 
we estimate the number of test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines located at major source facilities to be about 100, we estimate 
this database represents about 75 percent of test cells/stands used for 
testing rocket engines located at major source facilities in the United 
States. We consider the information contained in the MACT database to 
be representative of all test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines located at major source facilities.
    Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on 
the use of various emission control systems. First, we examined the use 
of control technology. No existing test cells/stands used for testing 
rocket engines located at major source facilities are equipped with 
emission control technologies.
    Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to 
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State 
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands. 
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from 
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State 
regulations and permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
    We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and 
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no 
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice 
standards'' in the MACT database, and a review of the general operation 
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating 
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded 
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards can 
be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies, State regulations and permits, and good operating 
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other 
alternatives such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in 
lower HAP emissions might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine 
testing, however, is to simulate the operation of a specific type of 
engine in a certain environment, which could be to confirm that the 
engine was assembled correctly and will function as intended. In other 
cases, engine testing may be conducted to measure or test the 
durability or performance of an engine, a new component within an 
engine, or a new engine design, all within the context of research and 
development.
    The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part 
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability 
of a rocket engine design by burning a fuel other than the one it is 
designed to use. Use of a specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions, 
therefore, is not a viable emission control alternative for rocket 
engine testing; indeed, such an alternative would defeat the very 
purpose of the testing. For that reason, we concluded that use of a 
specific fuel cannot be used to identify a MACT floor for engine cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines.
    Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we 
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for 
testing rocket engines located at major source facilities is no 
reduction in HAP emissions.
    To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing 
rocket engines located at major source facilities, we attempted to 
identify regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor. We are 
unaware of any emission control technology which could be used to 
reduce HAP emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing rocket 
engines.
    We also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above, which we 
considered for identifying a MACT floor (e.g., fuel switching, good 
operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of 
State permits and regulations), but for the reasons also discussed 
above, we concluded they are not viable options for MACT. We were 
unable to identify any feasible regulatory options.
    A number of characteristics of the exhaust from rocket engine 
testing (extremely high temperatures, extremely high volumetric flow 
rates, and very short test durations) and the infrequent timing of 
testing raise a number of unique problems that must be resolved for an 
emission control device to be considered a viable option for reducing 
HAP emissions from test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines. 
Consequently, we could identify no candidate MACT technologies for 
analysis. Without a viable emission control device, we are unable to 
estimate the potential costs associated with its use. Similarly, we are 
unable to estimate the potential reduction in HAP emissions which might 
result from the use of such a device.
    Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT 
floor. Consequently, MACT for existing test cells/stands used for 
testing rocket engines is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands 
used for testing rocket engines located at major source facilities, we 
also examined the MACT database. As mentioned earlier, no existing test 
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines currently use emission 
control devices.
    In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission 
control technologies might identify a MACT floor, we also considered 
whether any of the alternatives outlined above (e.g., fuel switching, 
good operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of 
State permits and regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT 
floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines, might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/stands 
used for testing rocket engines. Again, we concluded that none of these 
alternatives could be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test 
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines.
    Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines located at major source 
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
    We also considered regulatory options more stringent than the MACT 
floor. As explained in the previous paragraphs, we were unable to 
identify any emission control technology which could be used to reduce 
HAP emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing rocket engines. 
Thus, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT floor, and we 
concluded that MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing rocket 
engines located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP 
emissions.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standard?

    The HAP emissions test reports which serve as the basis for the 
MACT emission limitations did not measure specific HAP, such as 
toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, or 1,3-butadiene, etc. They measured 
CO emissions and, in most cases, they also measured total hydrocarbon 
(THC) emissions. In one case, emissions of non-methane organics (NMO) 
were also measured.

[[Page 34558]]

    The HAP emitted from engine test cells/stands are hydrocarbons, as 
well as organics. As a result, if HAP emissions decrease, emissions of 
THC and NMO will decrease as well. Consequently, the measurements of 
THC or NMO emissions serve as surrogate measurements of HAP emissions, 
and we assessed the HAP emissions reduction performance of the 
oxidation emission control devices in terms of reductions in THC or NMO 
emissions.
    In addition, the data from these HAP emissions test reports also 
demonstrate a direct relationship between emissions of CO and THC or 
NMO. If emissions of THC or NMO are reduced, CO emissions are also 
reduced. As a result, we concluded that CO emissions could also serve 
as a surrogate for HAP emissions, and we also assessed the HAP 
emissions reduction performance of the oxidation emission control 
devices in terms of reductions in CO emissions.
    We considered three alternatives in terms of the format for the 
MACT emission limitations. We could have proposed the emission 
limitation in terms of THC, NMO, or CO emissions; however, there was 
only one emission test report available which measured NMO emissions, 
so we rejected the alternative of an emission limitation in terms of 
NMO emissions in favor of an emission limitation in terms of either THC 
or CO emissions.
    As outlined earlier, we are proposing a MACT emission limitation in 
terms of CO emissions. We could have proposed an emission limitation in 
terms of THC emissions, but chose CO emissions primarily because the 
costs for CO CEMS are somewhat less than those for THC CEMS. However, 
since these costs are within the same range, some may prefer a MACT 
emission limitation in terms of THC, or they may prefer a choice of 
either the THC or CO emission limitation.
    As a result, we specifically request public comment in this area. 
If we were to adopt a THC MACT emission limitation in place of the 
proposed CO emission limitation, or if we were to adopt a THC emission 
limitation in addition to the proposed CO emission limitation and allow 
affected sources to comply with either the THC or the CO emission 
limitation, based on the HAP emissions test reports mentioned above, we 
anticipate that the corresponding THC MACT emission limitation would 
be: An outlet THC concentration of 3 ppmvd or less, expressed as 
methane and corrected to 15 percent O2; or a reduction in 
THC emissions of 99.7 percent.
    We recognize that this proposal will be of limited significance 
because it would require emission reductions from new major sources for 
only one of the four subcategories identified and that, standing alone, 
these new sources will likely have low HAP emissions. We nonetheless 
believe promulgation of standards for this source category is compelled 
by the Act. Section 112(a) defines ``major source'' as ``any stationary 
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area 
and under common control, that emits or has the potential to emit 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any 
hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination 
of hazardous air pollutants.'' Thus, sources are considered part of a 
major source when they are collocated with other sources at facilities 
that in combination have the potential to emit over the major source 
thresholds. Because the statute is clear that such collocated sources 
must be considered major, we believe it is also clear in the statute 
that we must list categories that include such sources and promulgate 
standards for those categories pursuant to section 112(d).
    In the interest of providing as much compliance flexibility as 
possible to these sources, we request comments on the possibility of 
averaging emissions across processes throughout the entire major source 
and allowing reductions from emission points covered by other MACT 
standards, within the facility, to be counted towards the emission 
limitations proposed in this action. Comments should include ideas on 
how such averaging scheme would work and be implemented. This type of 
provision, if implemented, could allow flexibility for the affected 
facility to determine an effective emission control strategy while, at 
the same time, achieving the emission reductions intended by this 
proposal.

F. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    We are proposing the use of CO and O2 CEMS to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limitation. These 
CEMS are available at reasonable costs and are in widespread use in 
numerous applications and numerous industries.
    For sources complying with either the outlet CO concentration 
emission limitation or the CO percent reduction emission limitation, an 
initial performance evaluation of the CEMS is required. This 
performance evaluation will certify the performance of the CO and 
O2 CEMS. The first 4-hour period following this performance 
evaluation of the CEMS will be used to determine initial compliance 
with either emission limitation.

G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    As mentioned above, we are proposing the use of CEMS to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable emission limitation. If you must comply 
with the outlet CO concentration emission limitation or the CO percent 
reduction emission limitation, continuous compliance with the 
limitation is required at all times. We are proposing the use of 
Procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, to ensure that the 
performance of the CEMS does not deteriorate over time.
    We consider the use of CEMS the best means of ensuring continuous 
compliance with the emission limitation, and alternatives to CEMS are 
considered only if we consider the use of a CEMS technically or 
economically infeasible. For sources complying with either of the 
emission limitations, we believe requiring a CEMS is feasible because 
the costs of CO and O2 CEMS are reasonable.

H. How Did We Select the Monitoring and Testing Methods?

    Continuous emission monitoring systems are available which can 
measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust 
from an oxidation emission control device operating on an engine test 
cell/stand. Performance Specification 4A for CO CEMS has not been 
updated recently and does not reflect the performance capabilities of 
these CEMS.
    As a result, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of 
state-of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to accurately measure the 
low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of an engine test 
cell/stand. We also solicit comments with specific recommendations on 
the changes we should make to our performance specification for CO CEMS 
(PS4A) to ensure the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to 
determine compliance of engine test cells/stands with the proposed 
emission limitation. In addition, we solicit comments on the 
availability of instruments that can be used to measure the low CO 
concentrations emitted by some engine test cells/stands, and that are 
capable of meeting the recommended changes to our performance 
specifications for CO CEMS.
    Today's proposal specifies the use of Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance 
of O2 CEMS and the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,

[[Page 34559]]

appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the 
CO CEMS. Method 10 is capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as 
those experienced in the exhaust of an oxidation emission control 
device operating on an engine test cell/stand. However, the performance 
criteria in addenda A of Method 10 have not been revised recently and 
are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at these 
CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum 
detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target 
concentrations as low as 1 ppmvd CO in some cases.
    As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on 
the changes we should make to Method 10 and the performance criteria in 
addenda A, as they are related to the low CO levels emitted by some 
engine test cells/stands. If you recommend changes to Method 10 or the 
performance criteria, we also solicit comments on the availability of 
instruments that can be used to measure the low CO concentrations 
emitted by some engine test cells/stands, and that are capable of 
meeting those changes, while also meeting the remaining addenda A 
performance criteria.

I. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements are based on the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 
63.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    This proposed rule will reduce HAP emissions in the 5th year 
following promulgation by an estimated 135 tons (148.5 megagrams).

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The total annualized cost of this proposed rule in the 5th year 
following promulgation is estimated to be about $7.4 million. This cost 
includes recordkeeping and reporting costs, CEMS costs, emission 
control device costs, and operating, maintenance, and annualized 
capital investment costs for emission control devices and CEMS.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    This proposed rule is not expected to affect any of the existing 
engine test cells/stands located at major source facilities which test 
internal combustion engines, combustion turbine engines, or rocket 
engines.
    We estimate that 148 new engine test cells/stands will be 
constructed in the next 5 years at engine research and development or 
production facilities which are major sources of HAP emissions. These 
new engine test cells/stands will be required to comply with the 
proposed rule.
    We anticipate that 84 of these new engine test cells/stands will be 
built at auto, tractor, and diesel engine manufacturing facilities, and 
that 64 of these new engine test cells/stands will be built at military 
facilities.
    The auto, tractor, and diesel engine manufacturing firms that are 
expected to construct new engine test cells/stands are large multi-
national firms; thus, the cost of compliance is insignificant in 
comparison to firm revenues. The total sales for the potentially 
affected firms range from $6.5 billion to more than $184 billion. Thus, 
the impact on affected firms ranges from 0.0007 to 0.015 percent of 
corporate revenues. Likewise, the cost of compliance for military 
facilities that may be affected is insignificant when compared to 
selected facilities expenditures. The compliance costs account for 0.07 
percent of facility expenditures on average, and 0.001 percent of the 
2001 budget for U.S. defense. Therefore, the economic impacts 
associated with this proposed rule are considered negligible.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    We do not expect any significant wastewater, solid waste, or energy 
impacts resulting from this proposed rule. Energy impacts associated 
with this proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption 
that would be required by installing and operating control equipment. 
The only energy requirement for the operation of the control 
technologies is a very small increase in fuel consumption resulting 
from back pressure caused by the emission control system.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We are requesting comments on this proposed rule. We request 
comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, such as the proposed 
emission limitation, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well 
as aspects you may feel have not been addressed.
    We also request comments on the performance capabilities of state-
of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to measure the low concentrations 
of CO in the exhaust of engine test cells/stands.
    We also request comments with recommendations on changes commenters 
believe we should make to our performance specifications for CO CEMS 
(PS4A) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10 that 
will allow the measurement of low CO concentrations emitted by some 
engine test cells/stands. In addition, we request comments from these 
commenters on the availability of instruments that can be used to 
measure the low CO concentrations emitted by some engine test cells/
stands, and that are capable of meeting the changes they recommend to 
our performance specification for CO CEMS (PS4A) of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and addendum A to 
Method 10.
    We also solicit comments on whether we should adopt a MACT emission 
limitation in terms of THC emissions rather than CO emissions. In 
addition, we solicit comments on whether we should adopt both THC and 
CO MACT emission limitations and allow affected sources to comply with 
either the THC or the CO MACT emission limitation.
    We request any HAP emissions test data available from engine test 
cells/stands equipped with an oxidation emission control device or 
other equivalent emission control system; however, if you submit HAP 
emissions test data, please submit the full and complete emission test 
report with these data. Include the sections describing the specific 
type of engine and its operation during the test, discussion of the 
test methods employed and the Quality Assurance/Quality Control 
procedures followed, the raw data sheets, and all related calculations. 
The emissions data submitted without this information is not useful.
    Finally, in the interest of providing as much compliance 
flexibility as possible to major sources, we request comments on the 
possibility of averaging emissions across processes throughout the 
entire major source and allowing reductions from emission points 
covered by other MACT standards, within the facility, to be counted 
towards the emission limitations proposed in this action. Comments 
should include ideas on how such averaging scheme would work and be 
implemented. This type of provision, if promulgated, could allow 
flexibility for the affected facility to determine an effective 
emission control strategy while, at the same time, achieving the 
emission reductions intended by this proposal.

[[Page 34560]]

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined 
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it 
does not have an annual effect on the economy of over $100 million. As 
such, this action was not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (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'' is 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 proposed 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.
    We are required by section 112 of the CAA to establish the 
standards in this proposed rule. This proposed rule primarily affects 
private industry and does not impose significant economic costs on 
State or local governments. This proposed rule does not include an 
express provision preempting State or local regulations. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (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.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed 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 on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. We 
know of one company that reported operating engine test cells/stands 
that are owned by an Indian tribal government. However, these test 
cells/stands are used for testing rocket engines. Although test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines are covered by the proposed 
rule, test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are not 
required to meet any emission limitation, reporting, or recordkeeping 
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks 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 we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we 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.
    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or 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 us 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 we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may

[[Page 34561]]

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, we must develop a small government agency plan under 
section 203 of the UMRA. 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 regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that this proposed 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. Accordingly, today's proposed rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, we have determined that this proposed rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to 
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose 
parent company has either fewer than 500 employees if the business is 
involved in testing marine engines, or fewer than 1,000 employees if 
the business is involved in the testing of other types of engines; (2) 
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, 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 is not 
dominant in its field.
    The requirements of this proposed rule apply only to major sources, 
which are defined as facilities that emit more than 10 tons per year of 
any one HAP, or more than 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP. 
According to our analyses, none of the identified major sources met the 
definition of a small business stated above. Therefore, this proposed 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Pursuant to 
the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we hereby certify that the proposed 
NESHAP, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    In 1998, we sent information collection requests (ICR) to over 100 
companies representing over 300 individual facilities. The ICR 
requested information on HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands 
and on the number of employees of the parent company. Using that 
information, we determined that there are no major sources that are 
also small businesses.
    In addition to the analyses of ICR data, we held several meetings 
with companies that operate engine testing facilities to inform them of 
the progress and development of the proposed rule. We also held a 
meeting on April 11, 2001 with the National Marine Manufacturers 
Association (NMMA), which represents the small businesses that had 
previously expressed concerns about the possible impacts of this 
proposed rule. That meeting helped clarify to NMMA and its member 
companies what type of facilities might be subject to this proposed 
rule. The meeting was followed up with phone conversations with NMMA 
and some of its member companies in order to obtain more information 
and to determine if any of the small entities emitted enough HAP to be 
considered a major source. Again, we concluded after the outreach 
activities that none of the small marine engine manufacturing 
businesses represented by NMMA would be subject to this proposed rule 
since they do not emit enough HAP to be considered major sources.
    Although this proposed rule is not expected to regulate small 
entities, we have tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on 
all sources. In this proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level 
of control and the minimum level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting to affected sources allowed by the CAA. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared (ICR 
No. 1967.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule requires maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but does not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements 
involve only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 5 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to be 9,600 labor hours per year at a total 
annual cost of $440,800. This estimate includes a one-time (initial) 
CEMS performance evaluation, annualized capital monitoring equipment 
costs, semiannual compliance reports, maintenance inspections, 
notifications, and recordkeeping. Total annual costs associated with 
the new source control and monitoring requirements over the period of 
the ICR are estimated at $7.4 million.
    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

[[Page 34562]]

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 our 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
    Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 
30 and 60 days after May 14, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 13, 2002. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    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 otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose 
to use EPA Methods 3A, 3B, 10, 10B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and 
PS3 and PS4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. Consistent with the NTTAA, 
we searched for voluntary consensus standards which could be used in 
lieu of these methods/performance specifications. No applicable 
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 10B and 
PS3 and PS4A.
    One voluntary consensus standard was identified as an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10. The voluntary consensus standard 
ASTM D6522-00, ``Standard Test Method for the Determination of Nitrogen 
Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from 
Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers 
and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers'' is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10 for identifying oxygen and carbon 
monoxide concentrations, respectively, for this proposed rule when the 
fuel used during testing is natural gas.
    Our search for emissions measurement procedures identified seven 
other voluntary consensus standards. Six of these seven standards 
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to 
emission standards in the proposed rule, however, were impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods/performance specifications for the 
purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, for the reason discussed 
below, we do not intend to adopt these voluntary consensus standards.
    The standard, ASTM D3162 (1994) ``Standard Test Method for Carbon 
Monoxide in the Atmosphere (Continuous Measurement by Nondispersive 
Infrared (NDIR) Spectrometry),'' is impractical as an alternative to 
EPA Method 10 in this proposed rulemaking because this ASTM standard, 
which is stated to be applicable in the range of 0.5-100 ppm CO, does 
not cover the range of EPA Method 10 (20-1000 ppm CO) at the upper end 
(but states that it has a lower limit of sensitivity). Also, ASTM D3162 
does not provide a procedure to remove carbon dioxide interference. 
Therefore, this ASTM standard is not appropriate for combustion 
sources. In terms of NDIR instrument performance specifications, ASTM 
D3162 has much higher maximum allowable rise and fall times (5 minutes) 
than EPA Method 10 (which has 30 seconds).
    The following five voluntary consensus standards are impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule 
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed 
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-91 
(1995), ``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube 
Method),'' for EPA Method 3B; ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for 
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions, for Automated Determination of 
Gas Concentration,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; ISO 10396:1993, 
``Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination 
of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; CAN/CSA Z223.2-
M86(1986), ``Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon 
Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in 
Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; and 
CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978, ``Method for the Measurement of Carbon Monoxide: 
3--Method of Analysis by Non-Dispersive Infrared Spectrometry,'' for 
EPA Method 10.
    The seventh voluntary consensus standard identified in this search 
for EPA Methods 3A and 10, ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary Source 
Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and 
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' was not available at the time the review 
was conducted for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because the 
method was under development by a voluntary consensus body. While we 
are not proposing to include this voluntary consensus standard in 
today's proposal, we will consider it when this voluntary consensus 
standard is final.
    We invite comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
included in the proposed rule and specifically solicit comment on 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should 
explain, however, why this proposed rule should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's methods or 
performance specifications. Emission test methods and performance 
specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a 
basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the 
procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method other than 
Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Sections 63.9310 and 63.9325 to subpart PPPPP lists the testing 
methods/performance specifications included in the proposed rule. Under 
Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to 
EPA for permission

[[Page 34563]]

to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing 
methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart PPPPP to read as follows:

Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/Stands

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.9280  What is the purpose of this subpart PPPPP?
63.9285  Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9290  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9295  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.9300  What emission limitation must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.9305  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.9310  By what date must I conduct the initial compliance 
demonstrations?
63.9320  What procedures must I use?
63.9325  What are my monitor installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.9330  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable 
emission limitation?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.9335  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.9340  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.9345  What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9350  What reports must I submit and when?
63.9355  What records must I keep?
63.9360  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.9365  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9370  Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9375  What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Initial 
Compliance Demonstrations
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations
Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 6 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63

Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/Stands

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.9280  What is the purpose of this subpart PPPPP?

    Subpart PPPPP establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for engine test cells/stands located at major 
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. This subpart also 
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations contained in this NESHAP.


Sec. 63.9285  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an engine 
test cell/stand that is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (a) An engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing 
uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or 
has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 
megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 
tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.


Sec. 63.9290  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    This subpart applies to each affected source.
    (a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or 
reconstructed engine test cell/stand that is located at a major source 
of HAP emissions.
    (1) Existing engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand is 
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the engine 
test cell/stand on or before May 14, 2002. A change in ownership of an 
existing engine test cell/stand does not make that engine test cell/
stand a new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand.
    (2) New engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand is new if 
you commenced construction of the engine test cell/stand after May 14, 
2002.
    (3) Reconstructed engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand 
is reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in 
Sec. 63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after May 14, 2002.
    (b) Existing engine test cells/stands do not have to meet the 
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part.
    (c) A new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand located at a 
major source which is used exclusively for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of less than 25 horsepower (hp) (19 
kilowatts (kW)) does not have to meet the requirements of this subpart 
and of subpart A of this part except for the initial notification 
requirements of Sec. 63.9345(b).
    (d) A new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand located at a 
major source which is used exclusively for testing combustion turbine 
engines or which is used exclusively for testing rocket engines does 
not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of 
this part.


Sec. 63.9295  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) Affected sources.
    (1) If you start up your new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with the emission limitation in this subpart 
no later than [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal 
Register].
    (2) If you start up your new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with the emission limitation in this subpart 
upon startup.
    (b) Area sources that become major sources. If your new or 
reconstructed engine test cell/stand is located at an area source that 
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a 
major source of HAP, your new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand 
must be in compliance with this

[[Page 34564]]

subpart when the area source becomes a major source.
    (c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9345 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.9345 and in subpart A of this 
part.

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.9300  What emission limitation must I meet?

    For each new or reconstructed test cell/stand which is used in 
whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with a rated 
power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and which is located at a major source, 
you must comply with one of the two emission limitations in Table 1 of 
this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9305  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitation which 
applies to you at all times, including startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of your engine test cell/stand.
    (b) If you must comply with an emission limitation, you must 
operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control 
equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good 
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9310  By what date must I conduct the initial compliance 
demonstrations?

    You must conduct the initial compliance demonstrations that apply 
to you in Table 2 of this subpart within 180 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified for your engine test cell/stand in 
Sec. 63.9295 and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).


Sec. 63.9320  What procedures must I use?

    (a) You must conduct each initial compliance demonstration that 
applies to you in Table 2 of this subpart.
    (b) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous 
emissions monitor system (CEMS) according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification 
(PS) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS3 or PS4A).
    (c) If you chose to comply with the carbon monoxide (CO) 
concentration emission limitation, the initial demonstration of 
compliance consists of the first 4-hour rolling average CO 
concentration recorded after completion of the CEMS performance 
evaluation. You must correct the CO concentration at the outlet of the 
engine test cell/stand or the emission control device to a dry basis 
and to 15 percent oxygen (O2) content according to Equation 
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY02.000


Where:

Cc = concentration of CO, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, 
parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd)
Cunc = total uncorrected concentration of CO, ppmvd
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in gas stream, dry 
basis, percent by volume.

    (d) If you chose to comply with the CO percent reduction emission 
limitation, the initial demonstration of compliance consists of the 
first 4-hour rolling average percent reduction in CO recorded after 
completion of the performance evaluation of the CEMS. You must complete 
the actions described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (2) of this section.
    (1) Correct the CO concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the 
emission control device to a dry basis and to 15 percent O2 
content using Equation 1 of this section.
    (2) Calculate the percent reduction in CO using this Equation 2:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY02.001
    

Where:

R = percent reduction in CO
Ci = corrected CO concentration at inlet of the emission 
control device
Co = corrected CO concentration at the outlet of the 
emission control device.


Sec. 63.9325  What are my monitor installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) To comply with the CO concentration emission limitation, you 
must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and 
O2 at the outlet of the exhaust system of the engine test 
cell/stand or at the outlet of the emission control device.
    (b) To comply with the CO percent reduction emission limitation, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and 
O2 at both the inlet and the outlet of the emission control 
device.
    (c) To comply with either emission limitation, the CEMS must be 
installed and operated according to the requirements described in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to 
the applicable PS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS3 or PS4A).
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to PS3 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B, using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, for the O2 CEMS; and according to PS4A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B, using Method 10 or 10B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, for the CO CEMS. If the fuel used in the engines being tested is 
natural gas, you may use ASTM D 6522-00, ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen 
Concentration in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating 
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using 
Portable Analyzers.''
    (3) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data 
recording) for each successive 15-minute period. You must have at least 
two data points, each representing a different 15-minute period within 
the same hour, to have a valid hour of data.
    (4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2) 
and recorded as CO concentration in ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent 
O2 content.
    (d) If you have CEMS that are subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of 
this section, you must properly maintain and operate the monitors 
continuously according to the requirements described in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Proper maintenance. You must maintain the monitoring equipment 
at all times that the engine test cell/stand is operating, including 
but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of 
the monitoring equipment.
    (2) Continued operation. You must operate your CEMS according to 
paragraphs (d)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all 
times that the engine test cell/stand is operating, except for, as 
applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required 
quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, 
calibration drift checks and required zero and high-level adjustments). 
Quality assurance or control activities must be performed according to 
Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (ii) Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated 
repairs, out-of-control periods, and required quality

[[Page 34565]]

assurance or control activities must not be used for purposes of 
calculating data averages. You must use all of the data collected from 
all other periods in assessing compliance. A monitoring malfunction is 
any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 
monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that 
are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 
malfunctions. Any period for which the monitoring system is out-of-
control and data are not available for required calculations 
constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.


Sec. 63.9330  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitation that applies to you according to Table 3 of this subpart.
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing results of the initial compliance demonstration according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.9345(f).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9335  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration drift checks and required zero and high-level 
adjustments of the monitoring system), you must conduct all monitoring 
in continuous operation at all times the engine test cell/stand is 
operating.
    (b) Do not use data recorded during monitor malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control 
activities for meeting the requirements of this subpart, including data 
averages and calculations. You must use all the data collected during 
all other periods in assessing the performance of the emission control 
device or in assessing emissions from the new or reconstructed engine 
test cell/stand.


Sec. 63.9340  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitation in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you according to 
methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the 
emission limitation which applies to you. You must also report each 
instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 6 of this 
subpart which apply to you. These instances are deviations from the 
emission limitations in this subpart and must be reported according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.9350.
    (c) Deviations from the applicable emission limitation that occur 
during a period of malfunction of the control equipment as defined by 
Sec. 63.9375 are not violations.

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.9345  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.8(e), 
(f)(4) and (6) and 63.9(b), (g)(1) and (2), and (h) that apply to you 
by the dates specified.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed test cell/stand 
used for testing internal combustion engines, you are required to 
submit an Initial Notification as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed engine test cell/stand before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL 
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed engine test cell/stand on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE 
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (3) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are 
otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in 
accordance with Sec. 63.9290(c), your notification should include the 
information in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v) and a statement that your 
new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand has no additional 
requirements, explaining the basis of the exclusion (for example, that 
the test cell/stand is used exclusively for testing internal combustion 
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19kW)).
    (c) If you are required to comply with an emission limitation in 
Table 1 of this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance 
Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). For each initial compliance 
demonstration with an emission limitation, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 
30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance 
demonstration.
    (d) You must submit a notification of performance evaluation of 
your CEMS at least 60 calendar days before the performance evaluation 
is scheduled to begin as required in Sec. 63.8(e)(2).


Sec. 63.9350  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand which must meet an emission limitation, you must submit a 
semiannual compliance report according to Table 5 of this subpart by 
the applicable dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section, unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule.
    (1) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9295 and ending 
on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following 
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date specified 
in Sec. 63.9295.
    (2) The first semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows 
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is 
specified in Sec. 63.9295.
    (3) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the 
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the 
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must be postmarked 
or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand that is 
subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 
71, and if the permitting authority has established the date for 
submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 
compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has 
established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (b) If there is no deviation from the applicable emission 
limitation and the CEMS was not out-of-control, according to 
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.

[[Page 34566]]

    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) A statement that no deviation from the applicable emission 
limitation occurred during the reporting period and that no CEMS was 
out-of-control, according to Sec. 63.8(c)(7).
    (c) For each deviation from an emission limitation, the semiannual 
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
    (2) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine 
test cell/stand during the reporting period.
    (3) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period (recorded in 4-hour periods), and the total duration 
as a percent of the total operating time during that reporting period.
    (4) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (d) For each CEMS deviation, the semiannual compliance report must 
include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) 
of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each CEMS was inoperative except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (2) The date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (3) A summary of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period (reported in 4-hour periods), and the total duration 
of CEMS downtime as a percent of the total engine test cell/stand 
operating time during that reporting period.
    (4) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment 
malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes and other unknown 
causes.
    (5) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s) of 
each monitor.
    (6) The date of the latest CEMS certification or audit.
    (7) A description of any changes in CEMS or controls since the last 
reporting period.


Sec. 63.9355  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of performance evaluations as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii).
    (4) Records of all maintenance on the air pollution control 
equipment, if applicable, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(iii).
    (b) For each CEMS, you must keep the records as described in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Previous (i.e., superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
    (3) Request for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for CEMS 
as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Table 4 of this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that 
applies to you.


Sec. 63.9360  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that 
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according 
to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must retain your records of the most recent 2 years on 
site, or your records must be accessible on site. Your records of the 
remaining 3 years may be retained off site.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.9365  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 6 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.


Sec. 63.9370  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as follows.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in 
Sec. 63.9300 under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.9375  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA); 
in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part; and in this 
section:
    CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by 
Public Law 101-549, 104 Statute 2399).
    Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major 
source as defined in this subpart.
    Combustion turbine engine means a device in which air is compressed 
in a compressor, enters a combustion chamber, and is compressed further 
by the combustion of fuel injected into the combustion chamber. The hot 
compressed combustion gases then expand over a series of curved vanes 
or blades arranged on a central spindle which rotates.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or

[[Page 34567]]

    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during 
malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Engine means any internal combustion engine, any combustion turbine 
engine, or any rocket engine.
    Engine test cell/stand means any apparatus used for testing 
uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines.
    Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) means any air pollutant listed in or 
pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
    Internal combustion engine means a device in which air enters a 
combustion chamber, is mixed with fuel, compressed in the chamber, and 
combusted. Fuel may enter the combustion chamber with the air or be 
injected into the combustion chamber. Expansion of the hot combustion 
gases in the chamber rotates a shaft, either through a reciprocating or 
rotary action. For purposes of this subpart, this definition does not 
include combustion turbine engines.
    Major source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning 
as in Sec. 63.2.
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. 
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 
operation are not malfunctions.
    Rated power means the maximum power output of an engine in use.
    Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source 
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any 
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary 
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment 
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of 
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of 
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions 
is federally enforceable.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined by 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Rocket engine means a device consisting of a combustion chamber in 
which materials referred to as propellants, which provide both the fuel 
and the oxygen for combustion, are burned. Combustion gases escape 
through a nozzle, providing thrust.

Tables to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63

       Table 1 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
[As stated in Sec.  63.9300, you must comply with the following emission
                              limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each new or reconstructed engine
   test cell/stand located at a major        You must meet one of the
  source which is used in whole or in    following emission limitations:
         part for testing * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Internal combustion engines with a    a. Limit the concentration of
 rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more.    CO to 5 ppmvd or less
                                          (corrected to 15 percent O2
                                          content);
                                             OR
                                         b. Achieve a reduction in CO of
                                          99.9 percent or more between
                                          the inlet and outlet
                                          concentrations of CO
                                          (corrected to 15 percent O2
                                          content) of the emission
                                          control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 2 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Requirements for Initial Compliance Demonstrations
              [As stated in Sec.  63.9310, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each engine test cell/stand                                                     According to the following
        complying with * * *             You must * * *            Using * * *             requirements***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CO concentration emissions    Demonstrate CO          A CEMS for CO and O2    This demonstration is
 limitation.                          emissions are 5 ppmvd   at the outlet of the    conducted immediately
                                      or less.                engine test cell/       following a successful
                                                              stand or emission       performance evaluation of
                                                              control device.         the CEMS as required in
                                                                                      Sec.  63.9325(c). The
                                                                                      demonstration consists of
                                                                                      the first 4-hour rolling
                                                                                      average of measurements.
                                                                                      The CO concentration must
                                                                                      be corrected to 15 percent
                                                                                      O2content, dry basis using
                                                                                      Equation 1 of Sec.
                                                                                      63.9320.
2. The CO percent reduction          Demonstrate a           A CEMS for CO and O2    This demonstration is
 emission limitation.                 reduction in CO of      at both the inlet and   conducted immediately
                                      99.9 percent or more.   outlet of the           following a successful
                                                              emission control        performance evaluation of
                                                              device.                 the CEMS as required in
                                                                                      Sec.  63.9325(c). The
                                                                                      demonstration consists of
                                                                                      the first 4-hour rolling
                                                                                      average of measurements.
                                                                                      The inlet and outlet CO
                                                                                      concentrations must be
                                                                                      corrected to 15 percent O2
                                                                                      content using Equation 1
                                                                                      of Sec.  63.9320. The
                                                                                      reduction in CO is
                                                                                      calculated using Equation
                                                                                      2 of Sec.  63.9320.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                               Limitations
[As stated in Sec.  63.9330, you must comply with the following emission
                              limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You have demonstrated initial compliance
        For the * * *                           if * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO concentration emission   The first 4-hour rolling average CO
 limitation.                    concentration is 5 ppmvd or less,
                                corrected to 15 percent O2 content.
2. CO percent reduction        The first 4-hour rolling average
 emission limitation.           reduction in CO is 99.9 percent or more,
                                dry basis, corrected to 15 percent O2
                                content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 34568]]


    Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
                          Emission Limitations
[As stated in Sec.  63.9340, you must comply with the following emission
                              limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must demonstrate continuous
        For the * *y*                     compliance by  * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO concentration emission   a. Collecting the CEMS data according to
 limitation.                    Sec.  63.9325(a), reducing the
                                measurements to 1-hour averages,
                                correcting them to 15 percent O2
                                content, dry basis, according to Sec.
                                63.9320;
 
                                    and
 
                               b. Demonstrating CO emissions are 5 ppmvd
                                or less over each 4-hour rolling
                                averaging period.
2. CO percent reduction        a. Collecting the CEMS data according to
 emission limitation.           Sec.  63.9325(b), reducing the
                                measurements to 1-hour averages,
                                correcting them to 15 percent O2
                                content, dry basis, calculating the CO
                                percent reduction according to Sec.
                                63.9320;
 
                                   and
 
                               b. Demonstrating a reduction in CO of
                                99.9 percent or more over each 4-hour
                                rolling averaging period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
              [As stated in Sec.  63.9350, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate an engine test cell/
   stand which must comply with emission           The report must contain * * *           You must submit the
   limitations, you must submit a * * *                                                       report * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report......................  a. If there are no deviations from the      i. Semi-annually,
                                             emission limitations that apply to you, a   according to the
                                             statement that there were no deviations     requirements in Sec.
                                             from the emission limitations during the    63.9350.
                                             reporting period;
 
                                                  or
 
                                            b. If there were no periods during which    i. Semi-annually,
                                             the CEMS was out-of-control as specified    according to the
                                             in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that       requirements in Sec.
                                             there were no periods during which the      63.9350.
                                             the CEMS was out-of-control during the
                                             reporting period;
 
                                                  or
 
                                             c. If you have a deviation from any        i. Semi-annually,
                                             emission limitation during the reporting    according to the
                                             period, the report must contain the         requirements in Sec.
                                             information in Sec.  63.9350(c);            63.9350.
                                                  or
 
                                            d. If there were periods during which the   i. Semi-annually,
                                             CEMS was out-of-control, as specified in    according to the
                                             Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the report must contain   requirements in Sec.
                                             the information in Sec.  63.9350(d).        63.9350.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 6 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPP of   Part 63
              [As stated in Sec.  63.9365, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Applies to subpart PPPPP of
             Citation                    Subject             Brief description                 part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1).................  Applicability......  General applicability of     Yes. Additional terms
                                                         the General Provisions.      defined in Sec.  63.9375.
Sec.  63.1(a)(2)-(4).............  Applicability......  Applicability of source      Yes.
                                                         categories.
Sec.  63.1(a)(5).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(7).............  Applicability......  Contact for source category  Yes.
                                                         information; extension of
                                                         compliance through early
                                                         reduction.
Sec.  63.1(a)(8).................  Applicability......  Establishment of State       No.
                                                         rules or programs.
Sec.  63.1(a)(9).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(14)...........  Applicability......  Explanation of time          Yes.
                                                         periods, postmark
                                                         deadlines.
Sec.  63.1(b)(1).................  Applicability......  Initial applicability......  Yes. Subpart PPPPP
                                                                                      clarifies applicability at
                                                                                      Sec.  63.9285.
Sec.  63.1(b)(2).................  Applicability......  Title V operating permit--   Yes. All major affected
                                                         reference to part 70.        sources are required to
                                                                                      obtain a title V permit.
Sec.  63.1(b)(3).................  Applicability......  Record of applicability      Yes.
                                                         determination.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1).................  Applicability......  Applicability after          Yes. Subpart PPPPP
                                                         standards are set.           clarifies the
                                                                                      applicability of each
                                                                                      paragraph of subpart A to
                                                                                      sources subject to subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2).................  Applicability......  Title V permit requirement   No. Area sources are not
                                                         for area sources.            subject to subpart PPPPP.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.1(c)(4).................  Applicability......  Extension of compliance for  No. Existing sources are
                                                         existing sources.            not covered by the
                                                                                      substantive control
                                                                                      requirements of subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.

[[Page 34569]]

 
Sec.  63.1(c)(5).................  Applicability......  Notification requirements    Yes.
                                                         for an area source
                                                         becoming a major source.
Sec.  63.1(d)....................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.1(e)....................  Applicability......  Applicability of permit      Yes.
                                                         program before a relevant
                                                         standard has been set.
Sec.  63.2.......................  Definitions........  Definitions for part 63      Yes. Additional definitions
                                                         standards.                   are specified in Sec.
                                                                                      63.9375.
Sec.  63.3.......................  Units and            Units and abbreviations for  Yes.
                                    Abbreviations.       part 63 standards.
Sec.  63.4.......................  Prohibited           Prohibited activities;       Yes.
                                    Activities.          compliance date;
                                                         circumvention,
                                                         severability.
Sec.  63.5(a)....................  Construction/        Construction and             Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      reconstruction--applicabil
                                                         ity.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1).................  Construction/        Requirements upon            Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      construction or
                                                         reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(2).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.5(b)(3).................  Construction/        Approval of construction...  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(4).................  Construction/        Notification of              Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      construction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(5).................  Construction/        Compliance.................  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(6).................  Construction/        Addition of equipment......  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(c)....................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.5(d)....................  Construction/        Application for              Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      construction
                                                         reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(e)....................  Construction/        Approval of construction or  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f)....................  Construction/        Approval of construction or  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.      reconstruction based on
                                                         prior State review.
Sec.  63.6(a)....................  Applicability......  Applicability of standards   Yes.
                                                         and monitoring
                                                         requirements.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(2).............  Compliance dates     Standards apply at           Yes.
                                    for new and          effective date; 3 years
                                    reconstructed        after effective date; upon
                                    sources.             startup; 10 years after
                                                         construction or
                                                         reconstruction commences
                                                         for CAA section 112(f).
Sec.  63.6(b)(3).................  Compliance dates     ...........................  No.
                                    for new and
                                    reconstructed
                                    sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(4).................  Compliance dates     Compliance dates for         Yes.
                                    for new and          sources also subject to
                                    reconstructed        CAA section 112(f)
                                    sources.             standards.
Sec.  63.6(b)(5).................  Compliance dates     Notification...............  Yes.
                                    for new and
                                    reconstructed
                                    sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).................  Compliance dates     Compliance dates for new     Yes.
                                    for new and          and reconstructed area
                                    reconstructed        sources that become major.
                                    sources.
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2).............  Compliance dates     Effective date establishes   No. Existing sources are
                                    for existing         compliance date.             not covered by the
                                    sources.                                          substantive control
                                                                                      requirements of subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4).............  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance dates     Compliance dates for         Yes. If the area source
                                    for existing         existing area sources that   becomes a major source by
                                    sources.             become major.                addition or
                                                                                      reconstruction, the added
                                                                                      or reconstructed portion
                                                                                      will be subject to subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.
Sec.  63.6(d)....................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2).............  Operation and        Operation and maintenance..  Yes; except that you are
                                    maintenance                                       not required to have a
                                    requirements.                                     startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                      malfunction plan (SSMP).
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).................  SSMP...............  (1) Requirement for          No. Subpart PPPPP does not
                                                         startup, shutdown, or        require a SSMP.
                                                         malfunction and SSMP.
                                                        (2) Content of SSMP........
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).................  Compliance except    ...........................  No. You must comply with
                                    during startup,                                   emission standards at all
                                    shutdown, or                                      times, including startup,
                                    malfunction.                                      shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec.  63.6(f) (2)-(3)............  Methods for          Compliance based on          Yes.
                                    Determining          performance test,
                                    Compliance.          operation and maintenance
                                                         plans, records, inspection.
Sec.  63.6(g) (1)-(3)............  Alternative          Procedures for getting an    Yes.
                                    Standard.            alternative standard.
Sec.  63.6(h)....................  Opacity/Visible      Requirements for opacity/VE  No. Subpart PPPPP does not
                                    Emission (VE)        Standards.                   establish opacity/VE
                                    Standards.                                        standards and does not
                                                                                      require continuous opacity
                                                                                      monitoring systems (COMS).

[[Page 34570]]

 
Sec.  63.6(i) (1)-(14)...........  Compliance           Procedures and criteria for  No. Compliance extension
                                    Extension.           Administrator to grant       provisions apply to
                                                         compliance extension.        existing sources, which do
                                                                                      not have emission
                                                                                      limitations in subpart
                                                                                      PPPPP.
Sec.  63.6(j)....................  Presidential         President may exempt source  Yes.
                                    Compliance           category from requirement
                                    Exemption.           to comply with rule.
Sec.  63.7(a) (1)-(2)............  Performance Test     Dates for conducting         No. Subpart PPPPP does not
                                    Dates.               initial performance          require performance
                                                         testing and other            testing.
                                                         compliance demonstrations;
                                                         must conduct within 180
                                                         days after first subject
                                                         to rule.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).................  Section 114          Administrator may require a  Yes.
                                    Authority.           performance test under CAA
                                                         section 114 at any time.
Sec.  63.7(b)(1).................  Notification of      ...........................  No.
                                    Performance Test.
Sec.  63.7(b)(2).................  Notification No. of  ...........................  No.
                                    Rescheduling.
Sec.  63.7(c)....................  Quality Assurance/   ...........................  No.
                                    Test Plan.
Sec.  63.7(d)....................  Testing Facilities.  ...........................  No.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1).................  Conditions FOR       ...........................  No.
                                    Conducting
                                    Performance Tests.
Sec.  63.7(e)(2).................  Conditions for       ...........................  No.
                                    Conducting
                                    Performance Tests.
Sec.  63.7(e)(3).................  Test Run Duration..  ...........................  No.
Sec.  63.7(e)(4).................  Other Performance    Administrator may require    Yes.
                                    Testing.             other testing under CAA
                                                         section 114.
Sec.  63.7(f)....................  Alternative Test     ...........................  No.
                                    Method.
Sec.  63.7(g)....................  Performance No.      ...........................  No.
                                    Test Data Analysis.
Sec.  63.7(h)....................  Waiver of Tests....  ...........................  No.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1).................  Applicability of     Subject to all monitoring    Yes. Subpart PPPPP contains
                                    Monitoring           requirements in standard.    specific requirements for
                                    Requirements.                                     monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                      63.9325.
Sec.  63.8(a)(2).................  Performance          Performance Specifications   Yes.
                                    Specifications..     in appendix B of 40 CRF
                                                         part 60 apply.
Sec.  63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved].........
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).................  Monitoring with      ...........................  No. Subpart PPPPP does not
                                    Flares.                                           have monitoring
                                                                                      requirements for flares.
Sec.  63.8(b)(1).................  Monitoring.........  Must conduct monitoring      Yes.
                                                         according to standard
                                                         unless Administrator
                                                         approves alternative.
Sec.  63.8(b) (2)-(3)............  Multiple Effluents   (1) Specific requirements    Yes.
                                    and Multiple         for installing monitoring
                                    Monitoring Systems.  systems.
                                   ...................  (2) Must install on each
                                                         effluent before it is
                                                         combined and before it is
                                                         released to the atmosphere
                                                         unless Administrator
                                                         approves otherwise.
                                   ...................  (3) If more than one
                                                         monitoring system on an
                                                         emission point, must
                                                         report all monitoring
                                                         system results, unless one
                                                         monitoring system is a
                                                         backup.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1).................  Monitoring System    Maintain monitoring system   Yes.
                                    Operation and        in a manner consistent
                                    Maintenance.         with good air pollution
                                                         control practices.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  Routine and          ...........................  No.
                                    Predictable
                                    Startup, Shutdown,
                                    or Malfunction.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  Startup, Shutdown,   ...........................  No.
                                    or Malfunction not
                                    in SSMP.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  Compliance with      (1) Determination by         Yes.
                                    Operation and        Administrator whether
                                    Maintenance          source is complying with
                                    Requirements.        operation and maintenance
                                                         requirements.
                                                        (2) Review of source
                                                         operation and maintenance
                                                         procedures, records,
                                                         manufacturer's
                                                         instructions,
                                                         recommendations and
                                                         inspection.
63.8(c) (2)-(3)..................  Monitoring System    (1) Must install to get      Yes.
                                    Installation.        representative emission of
                                                         parameter measurements.
                                                        (2) Must verify operational
                                                         status before or at
                                                         performance test.

[[Page 34571]]

 
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous           ...........................  No. Follow specific
                                    Monitoring System                                 Requirements in Sec.
                                    (CMS) requirements.                               63.9335(a) and (b).
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).................  COMS Minimum         ...........................  No.
                                    Procedures.
Sec.  63.8(c) (6)-(8)............  CMS Requirements...  (1) Zero and high level      Yes; except that subpart
                                                         calibration check            PPPPP does not require
                                                         requirements.                COMS.
                                                        (2) Out-of-control periods.
Sec.  63.8(d)....................  CMS Quality Control  (1) Requirements for CMS     Yes.
                                                         quality control, including
                                                         calibration, etc.
                                                        (2) Must keep quality
                                                         control plan on record for
                                                         5 years; keep old versions
                                                         for 5 years after
                                                         revisions.
Sec.  63.8(e)....................  CMS Performance      Notification, performance    Yes; except for Sec.
                                    Evaluation.          evaluation test plan,        63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                         reports.                     applies to COMS.
Sec.  63.8(f) (1)-(5)............  Alternative          Procedures for               Yes.
                                    Monitoring Method.   Administrator to approve
                                                         alternative monitoring.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to       Procedures for               Yes.
                                    Relative Accuracy    Administrator to approve
                                    Test.                alternative relative
                                                         accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g)....................  Data Reduction.....  (1) COMS 6-minute averages   Yes; except that provisions
                                                         calculated over at least     for COMS are not
                                                         36 evenly spaced data        applicable
                                                         points.
                                                        (2) CEMS 1-hour averages     Averaging periods for
                                                         computed over at least 4     demonstrating compliance
                                                         equally spaced data points.  are specified at Sec.
                                                                                      63.9340
Sec.  63.8(g)(5).................  Data Reduction.....  Data that cannot be used in  No. Specific language is
                                                         computing averages for       located at Sec.
                                                         CEMS and COMS.               63.9335(a).
Sec.  63.9(a)....................  Notification         Applicability and state      Yes.
                                    Requirements.        delegation.
Sec.  63.9(b)(1)-(5).............  Initial              (1) Submit notification 120  Yes.
                                    Notifications.       days after effective date;.
                                                        (2) Notification of intent
                                                         to construct/reconstruct;
                                                         Notification of
                                                         commencement of construct/
                                                         reconstruct; Notification
                                                         of startup;.
                                                        (3) Contents of each.......
Sec.  63.9(c)....................  Request for          ...........................  No.
                                    Compliance
                                    Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)....................  Notification of      For sources that commence    Yes.
                                    Special Compliance   construction between
                                    Requirements for     proposal and promulgation
                                    New Source.          and want to comply 3 years
                                                         after effective date.
Sec.  63.9(e)....................  Notification of      ...........................  No.
                                    Performance Test.
Sec.  63.9(f)....................  Notification of      ...........................  No.
                                    Opacity/VE Test.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).................  Additional           Notification of performance  Yes.
                                    Notifications When   evaluation.
                                    Using CMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2).................  Additional           ...........................  No.
                                    Notifications When
                                    Using CMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(3).................  Additional           Notification that exceeded   Yes. If alternative is in
                                    Notifications When   criterion for relative       use.
                                    Using CMS.           accuracy.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(6).............  Notification of      (1) Contents...............  Yes.
                                    Compliance Status.
                                                        (2) Due 60 days after end
                                                         of performance test or
                                                         other compliance
                                                         demonstration, except for
                                                         opacity/VE, which are due
                                                         after 30 days.
                                                        (3) When to submit to
                                                         Federal vs. State
                                                         authority.
Sec.  63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of        Procedures for               Yes.
                                    Submittal            Administrator to approve
                                    Deadlines.           change in when
                                                         notifications must be
                                                         submitted.
Sec.  63.9(j)....................  Change in Previous   Must submit within 15 days   Yes.
                                    Information.         after the change.
Sec.  63.10(a)...................  Recordkeeping/       (1) Applies to all, unless   Yes.
                                    Reporting.           compliance extension.
                                                        (2) When to submit to
                                                         Federal vs. State
                                                         authority.
                                                        (3) Procedures for owners
                                                         of more than one source.
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)................  Recordkeeping/       (1) General requirements...  Yes.
                                    Reporting.
                                                        (2) Keep all records
                                                         readily available.

[[Page 34572]]

 
                                                        (3) Keep for 5 years.......
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v).........  Records related to   ...........................  No.
                                    Startup, Shutdown,
                                    or Malfunction.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi).......  CMS Records........  Malfunctions, inoperative,   Yes.
                                                         out-of-control.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)...........  Records............  Records when under waiver..  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  Records............  Records when using           Yes.
                                                         alternative to relative
                                                         accuracy test.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...........  Records............  All documentation            Yes.
                                                         supporting initial
                                                         notification and
                                                         notification of compliance
                                                         status.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3)................  Records............  Applicability                Yes.
                                                         Determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15)..  Records............  Additional records for CEMS  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(c) (7)-(8)...........  Records............  Records of excess emissions  No. Specific language is
                                                         and parameter monitoring     located at Sec.  63.9355.
                                                         exceedances for CMS..
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)................  General Reporting    Requirement to report......  Yes.
                                    Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)................  Report of            When to submit to Federal    Yes.
                                    Performance Test     or State authority.
                                    Results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting Opacity    ...........................  No.
                                    or VE Observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)................  Progress Reports...  ...........................  No.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)................  Startup, Shutdown,   ...........................  No.
                                    or Malfunction
                                    Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i).....  Additional CMS       Additional CMS reports.....  Yes.
                                    Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)(ii)............  Additional CMS       ...........................  No.
                                    Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)................  Additional CMS       Excess emissions and         No. Specific language is
                                    Reports.             parameter exceedances        located in Sec.  63.9350.
                                                         report.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)................  Additional CMS                                    No.
                                    Reports.
Sec.  63.10(f)...................  Waiver for           Procedures for               Yes.
                                    Recordkeeping/       Administrator to waive.
                                    Reporting.
Sec.  63.11......................  Control Device                                    No.
                                    Requirements.
Sec.  63.12......................  State Authority and  State authority to enforce   Yes.
                                    Delegations.         standards.
Sec.  63.13......................  Addresses of State   Addresses where reports,     Yes.
                                    Air Pollution        notifications, and
                                    Control Offices      requests are send.
                                    and EPA Regional
                                    Offices.
Sec.  63.14......................  Incorporation by     Test methods incorporated    Yes.
                                    reference.           by reference.
Sec.  63.15......................  Availability of      Public and confidential      Yes.
                                    information and      information.
                                    confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-11296 Filed 5-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P