[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77830-77874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31232]



[[Page 77829]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 77830]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0059; FRL--7417-9]
RIN 2060-AG-63


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal 
combustion engines (RICE) with manufacturer's nameplate rating above 
500 brake horsepower located at major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP). We have identified stationary RICE as a major source 
category of HAP emissions such as formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and 
acetaldehyde. The proposed rule would implement section 112(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission 
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) for RICE. We estimate that 40 percent of stationary 
RICE will be located at major sources and thus subject to the proposed 
rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts 
presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. We estimate that 
the proposed rule would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major 
stationary RICE by approximately 5,000 tons/year in the 5th year after 
the standards are implemented. The emissions reductions achieved by 
these standards will provide protection to the public and achieve a 
primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003, or by 
February 20, 2003 if a public hearing is held.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 8, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
January 21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail (in duplicate, if 
possible) to EPA West (Air Docket), U.S. EPA (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket 
ID No. OAR-2002-0059. By hand delivery/courier, comments may be 
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), U.S. EPA, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. Also, 
comments may be submitted electronically according to the detailed 
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or 
at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. OAR-2002-0059 contains supporting information 
used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B108, 
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion Group, 
Emission Standards Division, (MD-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5263; facsimile 
number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                       SIC         NAICS                               Examples of regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary RICE as             4911         2211  Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution.
 defined in the proposed rule.
                                                    4922        48621  Natural gas transmission.
                                                    1311       211111  Crude petroleum and natural gas production.
                                                    1321       211112  Natural gas liquids producers.
                                                    9711        92811  National security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide for 
readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To 
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.6585 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.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 
West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for 
the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not 
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only 
in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket

[[Page 77831]]

materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 
When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 
system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in 
EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may 
be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified 
above. The EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to 
all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic 
public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' The EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be 
considered if time permits.
    Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed 
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and 
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your 
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any 
disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the 
disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that 
EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact 
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic 
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information 
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select 
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be 
accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 
No. OAR-2002-0059. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the 
contact person listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified 
above.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following 
address: Mr. Sims Roy, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-
2), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0059. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI 
by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit 
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

[[Page 77832]]

    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
    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-C439-
01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5578 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons 
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mrs. 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 the proposed rule. If a public hearing is 
requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral 
presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. 
Written statements and supporting information will be considered with 
equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information 
presented at a public hearing, if held.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the regulatory development background of this source 
category?
    B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    D. What are the health effects associated with HAP from 
stationary RICE?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Am I subject to the proposed rule?
    B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the 
proposed rule?
    C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are 
the emissions?
    D. What are the emission limitations and operating 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 
these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde?
    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 is the affected source?
    C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
emission limitations and operating limitations?
    D. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE of 
500 brake horsepower or less?
    E. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE 
located at area sources?
    F. How did we select the format of the standard?
    G. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
    H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
    I. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure 
these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde?
    J. 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 nonair 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 Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source 
Category?

    In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion 
Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The committee's objective was to develop 
recommendations for regulations for several combustion source 
categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory 
committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work 
Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work 
group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to 
stationary RICE units. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations, 
information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in 
turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to 
EPA. The Committee's 2-year charter expired in September 1998. We 
considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the proposed 
rule for stationary RICE.

B. 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. The 
stationary RICE source category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit 
greater than 10 ton/yr of any one HAP or 25 ton/yr of any combination 
of HAP. Most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines are not major HAP 
emission sources by themselves but are major because they are co-
located at major HAP sites.

C. What Criteria Are Used 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 sources in regulated source 
categories. 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 standards are 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 subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor 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

[[Page 77833]]

cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health 
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Stationary 
RICE?

    Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP 
show that several HAP are emitted from stationary RICE. These HAP 
emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds 
contained in the fuel burned.
    Hazardous air pollutants which have been measured in emission tests 
conducted on natural gas fired and distillate oil fired RICE include: 
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,3-butadiene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, 
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methanol, methylene chloride, n-hexane, 
naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic organic 
matter, styrene, tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP 
from distillate oil fired stationary RICE that have been measured are: 
Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
    Although numerous HAP may be emitted from RICE, only a few account 
for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions from stationary RICE. 
These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde.
    The hazardous air pollutant emitted in the largest quantities from 
stationary RICE is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human 
carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, 
coughing, dry throat, tightening of the chest, headache, and heart 
palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema, 
pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Long-term 
exposure can cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and 
respiratory tract.
    Acrolein is a cytotoxic agent, a powerful lacrimating agent, and a 
severe tissue irritant. Acute exposure to acrolein can cause severe 
irritation or corrosion of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with 
tearing, pain in the chest, and delayed-onset pulmonary injury with 
depressed pulmonary function. Chronic exposure to acrolein can cause 
skin sensitization and contact dermatitis. Acrolein is not considered 
carcinogenic to humans.
    Humans are very sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol 
including formic acidaemia, metabolic acidosis, ocular toxicity, 
nervous system depression, blindness, coma, and death. A majority of 
the available information on methanol toxicity in humans is based on 
acute rather than long-term exposure. However, recent animal studies 
also indicate potential reproductive and developmental health 
consequences following exposure to methanol in both mice and primates. 
Methanol has not been classified with respect to carcinogenicity.
    The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eye 
mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and a central 
nervous system (CNS) depressant in humans. Chronic exposure can cause 
conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic 
exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and 
teratogenic effects. Acetaldehyde is a probable carcinogen in humans.
    We recently reviewed health effects associated with emissions of 
particulates from diesel engines in the context of regulating heavy 
duty motor vehicles and engines (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). Diesel 
particulate matter is not currently listed as a hazardous air pollutant 
for stationary sources under section 112 of the CAA and was not 
specifically reviewed under the proposed rule, though constituent parts 
of diesel particulate matter are subject to the proposed rule. We are 
continuing to review this issue in the context of regulating stationary 
internal combustion engines.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Am I Subject to the Proposed Rule?

    The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate stationary 
RICE which are located at a major source of HAP emissions, except if 
your stationary RICE are all rated at or under 500 brake horsepower. 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.
    Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP 
for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility 
is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites 
within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We 
incorporated the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA into our 
NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of 
40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions 
for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for RICE only with 
respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility. 
The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any 
of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have 
potential for flash emissions, RICE and combustion turbines.
    The standards proposed in the rule have specific requirements for 
all new or reconstructed stationary RICE and for existing spark 
ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major 
source of HAP emissions, except that stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less are not 
addressed in the proposed rule. Stationary RICE which operate 
exclusively as emergency power/limited use units or which combust 
landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel are subject only to 
initial notification requirements.
    An emergency power/limited use unit means any stationary RICE that 
operates as a mechanical or electrical power source during emergencies, 
when the primary power source for a facility has been rendered 
inoperable by an emergency situation. One example is when electric 
power from the local utility is interrupted. Another example is to pump 
water in the case of fire or flood. Emergency power/limited use units 
include units that operate less than 50 hours per year in non-emergency 
situations, including certain peaking units at electric facilities or 
stationary RICE at industrial facilities.
    With the exception of existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE, 
other types of existing stationary RICE (i.e., spark ignition 2 stroke 
lean burn (2SLB), spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB), and 
compression ignition (CI)) located at a major source of HAP emissions 
are not subject to any specific requirement under the proposed rule.
    Finally, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test 
cells/stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, 
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.

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

    The proposed rule covers new or reconstructed stationary RICE and 
existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE. A RICE is any spark 
ignition or compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion 
engine. A stationary RICE is any RICE which is not mobile.
    Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are 
not self-

[[Page 77834]]

propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their 
function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is 
identified in the definition of non-road engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
    We divided the stationary RICE source category into four 
subcategories: (1) Emergency power/limited use units, (2) stationary 
RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, 
(3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake 
horsepower or less, and (4) other stationary RICE. We further divided 
the last subcategory into four subcategories: (1) 2SLB stationary RICE, 
(2) 4SLB stationary RICE, (3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and (4) CI 
stationary RICE.
    We are specifically soliciting comments on creating a subcategory 
of limited use engines with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or 
less. This is further discussed in the ``Solicitation of Comments and 
Public Participation'' section of this preamble.
    The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/
stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, 
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.
    The proposed rule also does not apply to existing, new, or 
reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP 
emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a plant site that does 
not emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or 
greater per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 
megagrams) or greater per year. In addition, the proposed rule does not 
apply to stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 
brake horsepower or below. These engines have been discussed previously 
in this preamble.

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

    The primary sources of HAP emissions are exhaust gases from 
combustion of gaseous fuels and liquid fuels in stationary RICE. 
Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde are HAP that are 
present in significant quantities from stationary RICE.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?

    As the owner or operator of an affected source, you must do one of 
the following: (1) Each existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary 
RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 1(a) of 
proposed subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in 
Table 1(b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply, or (2) each new or 
reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE must 
comply with each emission limitation in Table 2(a) of proposed subpart 
ZZZZ and operating limitation in Table 2(b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ 
that apply.
    Existing 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or existing CI stationary 
RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively as emergency power/
limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust digester gas or 
landfill gas as their primary fuel have an emission standard of no 
emission reduction, and will not be tested to meet any specific 
emission limitation or operating limitation. In addition, any 
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, any 
stationary RICE that have a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 
brake horsepower or less, or stationary RICE that are being tested at 
stationary RICE test cells/stands are not addressed in the proposed 
rule and, therefore, do not need to comply with any emission limitation 
or operating limitation.

E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    If your stationary RICE must meet specific emission limitations and 
operating limitations, then you must meet the following initial 
compliance requirements. The testing and initial compliance 
requirements are different, depending on whether you demonstrate 
compliance with the carbon monoxide (CO) emission reduction 
requirement, formaldehyde emission reduction requirement, or the 
requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration in the stationary 
RICE exhaust.
    1. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI 
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 
brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions 
using a oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous parameter 
monitoring system (CPMS) to continuously monitor the pressure drop 
across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. You must 
conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are 
achieving the required CO percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent 
oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record 
the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet 
temperature.
    2. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI 
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or 
equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce 
CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to measure CO and either carbon 
dioxide or oxygen simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the 
oxidation catalyst. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct 
an initial performance evaluation using Performance Specifications (PS) 
3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You must demonstrate that the 
reduction of CO emissions meets the required percent reduction using 
the first 4-hour average after a successful performance evaluation. 
Your measurements at the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst 
must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent oxygen or equivalent 
carbon dioxide content.
    3. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using non-selective 
catalytic reduction (NSCR), you must install a CPMS to continuously 
monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet 
temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that 
you are achieving the required formaldehyde percent reduction, 
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial 
performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure 
drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the 
temperature rise across the catalyst.
    4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must 
conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 
430, or EPA Solid Waste (SW)-846 Method 0011 to demonstrate that the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust is less 
than or equal to the emission limit, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, 
dry basis, that applies to you. To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry 
basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The initial performance test must be conducted at the 
lowest load at which you will operate your stationary RICE and at the 
typical load at which you will operate your stationary RICE. This 
initial performance test establishes the lowest load or the minimum 
fuel flow rate at which you may operate your stationary RICE.
    To demonstrate initial compliance, you must also install a CPMS to 
continuously monitor stationary RICE load or fuel flow rate and other 
(if any)

[[Page 77835]]

operating parameters approved by the Administrator.
    If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde, you must also petition the Administrator 
for approval of additional operating limitations or approval of no 
additional operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your 
petition for additional operating limitations, the operating 
limitations must also be established during the initial performance 
test.
    If you petition the Administrator for approval of additional 
operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) 
Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as 
additional operating limitations; (2) a discussion of the relationship 
between the parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions 
change with changes in the parameters, and how limitations on the 
parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; (3) a discussion of how 
you will establish the upper and/or lower values for the parameters 
which will establish the limits on the parameters in the operating 
limitations; (4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to 
measure and the instruments you will use to monitor the parameters, as 
well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and 
instruments; and (5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods 
for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring the 
parameters.
    If you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional 
operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) 
Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the 
stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change 
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller 
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.) 
on a routine basis or over time; (2) a discussion of the relationship, 
if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions; 
(3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a 
discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would 
serve to limit HAP emissions; (4) for those parameters with a 
relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish 
upper and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish 
limits on these parameters in operating limitations; (5) for the 
parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion 
identifying the methods you could use to measure the parameters and the 
instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative 
accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; (6) for the 
parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for 
recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and (7) a 
discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or 
unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

    Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to all 
stationary RICE meeting various specified emission and operating 
limitations. If your stationary RICE is required to meet specific 
emission and operating limitations, then you are required to comply 
with the emission and operating limitations at all times, except during 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. You must 
also operate and maintain your stationary RICE, 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 all monitoring at all times that the 
stationary RICE is operating, except during periods of malfunction of 
the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs or quality assurance or 
control activities, such as calibration checks.
    1. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower, 
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an 
oxidation catalyst, you must conduct quarterly performance tests for CO 
and oxygen using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required 
CO percent reduction is achieved. To demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the CO percent reduction requirement, you must continuously 
monitor and record the pressure drop across the catalyst and the 
catalyst inlet temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid 
data must be within the operating limitations. If you change your 
oxidation catalyst (i.e., replace catalyst elements), you must 
reestablish your pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature.
    2. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake 
horsepower, complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation 
using an oxidation catalyst, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously 
monitor and record the CO concentration at the inlet and outlet of the 
oxidation catalyst and calculate the percent reduction of CO emissions 
hourly. The reduction of CO must be at least the required percent 
reduction, based on a rolling 4-hour average, averaged every hour. You 
must also conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of your 
CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily 
and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix F, procedure 1.
    3. For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE 
complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using 
NSCR, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by continuously 
monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet 
temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data must be above and/or 
below the lower bounds and/or upper bounds of the operating parameters 
corresponding to compliance with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde 
emissions. If you change your NSCR (i.e., replace catalyst elements), 
you must reestablish the values of the pressure drop across the 
catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise 
across the catalyst.
    The 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating 
greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower must also conduct 
semiannual performance tests to demonstrate that the percent reduction 
for formaldehyde emissions is achieved. If you demonstrate compliance 
with the percent reduction requirement for two successive performance 
tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually. 
However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation from the 
percent reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual 
performance tests.
    4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the 
following requirements must be met:
    a. Proper maintenance. At all times, the owner or operator shall 
maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, 
maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring 
equipment.
    b. Continued operation. Except for, as applicable, monitoring 
malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or 
control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 
required zero and span adjustments), the owner or operator

[[Page 77836]]

shall conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that 
the unit is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, and required quality 
assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of 
calculating data averages. The owner or operator shall use all the data 
collected during 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.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
limitations, you must continuously monitor and record the operating 
load or fuel flow rate of the stationary RICE, and the values of any 
other parameters which have been approved by the Administrator as 
operating limitations. The 4-hour rolling average of the operating load 
or fuel flow rate must be no lower than 5 percent below the operating 
limitations established during the initial performance test.
    After completion of the initial performance test, you must 
demonstrate that formaldehyde emissions remain at or below the 
formaldehyde concentration limit by performing semiannual performance 
tests. If you demonstrate compliance with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for two 
successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of 
performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test 
indicates a deviation of formaldehyde emissions from the formaldehyde 
concentration limit, you must return to semiannual performance tests. 
Also, if your stationary RICE will be operated at a load that is lower 
than the load at which you operated the stationary RICE during the 
initial performance test, you must conduct a performance test and 
reestablish the minimum values for the stationary RICE.

G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available To Measure These 
Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde?

    Continuous emissions monitoring systems are available which can 
accurately measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the 
exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission 
control device. Our PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, 
however, has not been updated recently and does not reflect the 
performance capabilities of the systems. We are currently undertaking a 
review of PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, and 
in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on the performance 
capabilities of CO CEMS to accurately measure the low concentrations of 
CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an 
oxidation catalyst emission control device.
    Similarly, our Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) test method, 
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, CARB Method 430, as well as 
EPA SW-846 Method 0011 can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde 
concentrations in the exhaust of a stationary RICE as low as 350 parts 
per billion by volume, dry basis (ppbvd). Similar to our current 
performance specifications for CO CEMS, as both of these test methods 
are currently written, they do not provide for this level of accuracy. 
The methods must be used with some revisions to achieve such accuracy.
    As a result, we are currently undertaking a review of our FTIR 
method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to incorporate 
revisions to ensure it can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde 
concentrations as low as 8 ppbvd in the exhaust from a stationary RICE. 
In conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on revisions to 
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to ensure accurate 
measurement of such low concentrations of formaldehyde.
    In addition, we are also proposing another EPA method for measuring 
formaldehyde from natural gas-fired stationary RICE. This impinger-
based method, EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement 
of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas-fired Stationary Sources--
Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method, may be an acceptable method for 
measuring low concentrations as required by the proposed rule.

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

    If you own or operate a stationary RICE which is located at a major 
source of HAP emissions, 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 test or evaluation, and a notification of compliance for 
each stationary RICE which must comply with the specified emission and 
operating limitations. In addition, you must submit an initial 
notification for each stationary RICE which operates exclusively as an 
emergency power/limited use unit or a stationary RICE which combusts 
digester gas or landfill gas as primary fuel.
    You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are 
in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations 
(if applicable) as required by the proposed rule. 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, corrective action, report, or record. Records 
must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained 
offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    You must submit a compliance report semiannually. This report 
should contain information including company name and address, a 
statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, and a 
statement of compliance or documentation of any deviation from the 
requirements of the proposed rule during the reporting period.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

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

    Stationary RICE are listed as a major source category for 
regulatory development under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA allows us 
discretion in defining the appropriate scope of the category and 
subcategories. We considered several criteria associated with 
stationary RICE which could lead to establishment of subcategories 
including differences in emission characteristics, fuel, mode of 
operation, size of source, and type of source.
    We identified four subcategories of stationary RICE located at 
major sources: (1) Emergency power/limited use units, (2) stationary 
RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, 
(3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's rating of 500 brake 
horsepower or less, and (4) other stationary RICE.
    We identified emergency power/limited use units as a subcategory. 
Emergency power/limited use units operate only in emergencies, such as 
a loss of power provided by another source. These types of stationary 
RICE operate infrequently and, when called upon to operate, must 
respond without failure and without lengthy periods of startup. These 
conditions limit the

[[Page 77837]]

applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/
limited use units.
    Similarly, stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester 
gas as their primary fuel were identified as a subcategory. Landfill 
and digester gases contain a family of chemicals referred to as 
siloxanes, which limits the application of HAP emission control 
technology.
    Stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake 
horsepower or less were also identified as a subcategory. We know very 
little about these stationary RICE and without further knowledge have 
concerns about the applicability of HAP emission control technology to 
them. As discussed above, we have not addressed these stationary RICE 
in the proposed rule.
    Finally, in considering the fourth subcategory (i.e., other 
stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions), we 
identified four additional subcategories of stationary RICE within this 
fourth subcategory: (1) 2SLB stationary RICE, (2) 4SLB stationary RICE, 
(3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and (4) CI stationary RICE. The further 
subcategorization is necessary because engine design characteristics, 
HAP emissions, and the application of HAP emission control technology 
differ among the subcategories. For further information on our 
rationale for subcategorization, see the memorandum entitled 
``Subcategorization of Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engines for the Purpose of NESHAP'' in the docket.
    Stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/stands 
are not covered by the proposed rule since they will be covered by a 
separate NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.

B. What Is the Affected Source?

    The affected source for the proposed rule is any stationary RICE 
located at a major source of HAP emissions with a manufacturer's 
nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower and not being tested at a 
stationary RICE test cell/stand.

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

1. Overview
    As established in section 112(d) of the CAA, the emission 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. The MACT floor for new 
sources must be no less stringent than the level of emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. As 
outlined below, the MACT floors and MACT for existing and new 
stationary RICE were developed primarily through analyses of the 
population database and the emissions database.
    The population database provides population information on 
operating stationary RICE in the United States and was constructed to 
support the proposed rule. The population database contains information 
from available databases, such as the Aerometric Information Retrieval 
System, the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group, and State and local 
agencies' databases. The first version of the database was released in 
1997. Subsequent versions have been released reflecting additional or 
updated data. The most recent release of the database is version 4, 
released in November 1998.
    The population database contains information on approximately 
28,000 stationary RICE. We believe the current stationary RICE 
population is about 37,000, including those under 500 horsepower and 
those at area sources, therefore, we believe the population database 
represents about 75 percent of the stationary RICE in the United 
States. As a result, we believe the information in the population 
database is representative of the stationary RICE industry subject to 
the proposed rule.
    The emissions database is a compilation of available HAP emission 
test reports created to support the proposed rule. The majority of HAP 
emission test reports were conducted in the State of California as part 
of the Air Toxics ``Hot Spots'' Information Assessment Act of 1987 
program. Complete copies of HAP emission test reports for stationary 
RICE were gathered from air districts in California and taken from a 
previous EPA effort referred to as the Source Test Information 
Retrieval System. Other States and trade associations such as Western 
States Petroleum Association and Gas Research Institute (GRI) were 
contacted for available HAP emission test reports. Finally, the 
emissions database also includes preliminary results from a joint EPA-
industry HAP emission testing program on stationary RICE at the Engines 
and Energy Conversion Laboratory at Colorado State University (CSU).
2. General
    We considered several approaches to identify MACT floors for 
stationary RICE. One approach was to review State regulations and 
permits for stationary RICE. We found no State regulations or State 
permits which specifically limit HAP emissions from stationary RICE.
    Another approach we considered to identify MACT floors for 
stationary RICE was that of good combustion practices. We tried to 
identify specific practices which might be considered improved 
maintenance or operation, such as frequent checks or tune ups, which 
serve to maintain a stationary RICE in good operating condition. We 
thought the use of such practices might prevent increases in HAP 
emissions which could arise from poor operation or failure of a 
stationary RICE.
    Toward that end, we contacted State and local permitting 
authorities, as well as the manufacturers and the owners and operators 
of stationary RICE. A more detailed discussion is presented in 
``Pollution Prevention for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' 
in the docket. We were unable to identify any specific good combustion 
practices from these efforts which we could relate directly to reduced 
HAP emissions.
    As mentioned above, the primary approach we ultimately used to 
identify MACT floors and MACT was to review information in the 
population and emissions databases. We reviewed the information in the 
databases to identify stationary RICE operating with emission control 
systems and then to identify the level of performance, in terms of HAP 
emissions reductions, associated with the use of the emission control 
systems.
    We reviewed MACT floors and MACT for the four subcategories 
separately. The MACT for emergency power/limited use units and 
landfill/digester gas units are discussed later in this preamble. As 
discussed above, we did not address engines with manufacturer's 
nameplate ratings at or below 500 brake horsepower in the proposed rule 
nor do we address stationary RICE that are tested at stationary RICE 
test cells/stands. The MACT for other stationary RICE are discussed 
below.
    We found several stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst 
systems and several operating with NSCR systems. Oxidation catalyst 
systems have been installed primarily to reduce CO emissions and, to 
some extent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, from 2SLB and 
4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. Non-selective catalytic 
reduction systems, on the other hand, have been installed primarily to 
reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from 4SRB stationary 
RICE.
    Examination of HAP emission data from the emissions database, as 
well as preliminary emission data from HAP emission testing at CSU 
leads us to

[[Page 77838]]

conclude that oxidation catalyst systems will reduce HAP emissions from 
2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, as discussed 
further below. Similarly, examination of HAP emission data leads us to 
conclude that NSCR will reduce HAP emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE.
3. Existing Source MACT Floor for Other Stationary RICE Subcategory
    As mentioned in the previous section, MACT floors for existing RICE 
could not be established based on State and local permit information 
because there are no State or local regulations for RICE regarding HAP 
and the use of good operating practices because no operating practices 
could be specifically linked to HAP emissions reductions.
    Review of the population database indicates that few existing 2SLB 
and 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE use oxidation catalyst 
systems. The number is less than 1 percent for 2SLB stationary RICE, 
about 3 percent for 4SLB stationary RICE, and less than 1 percent for 
CI stationary RICE. In addition, less than 1 percent of existing CI 
stationary RICE use a catalyzed diesel particulate filter (C-DPF), 
which is believed to reduce HAP emissions to some extent. However, all 
of these percentages are well below the criteria for a MACT floor that 
would require emissions reductions for existing sources (average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources). We have interpreted average emission limitation of 
the best performing 12 percent to refer to either the numerical mean or 
the numerical median. In this case, EPA has used the median value, that 
is, the level of control at the 6th (best performing) percentile to 
determine the average. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for existing 
2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE is no emissions reductions.
    Unlike the situation outlined above, more than 6 percent of 
existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. Therefore, we conclude 
the MACT floor for 4SRB existing stationary RICE is the level of HAP 
emissions reductions achieved by the use of NSCR systems. We discuss 
this in more detail below.
4. Existing Source MACT
    To determine MACT for the subcategories of existing 2SLB and 4SLB 
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE, we evaluated two 
regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor. 
Specifically, we considered the use of oxidation catalyst systems as a 
beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative and fuel switching. With one 
exception noted below, these are the only options we know of which 
could serve as the basis for MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the 
subcategories of stationary RICE.
    In our review of oxidation catalyst systems, we concluded that this 
alternative would be inappropriate given the cost per ton of HAP 
removed. Non-air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy 
effects were not significant factors.
    The second option considered was to switch fuels in existing RICE 
from fuels which result in higher HAP emissions to fuels that result in 
lower HAP emissions. When we compared the CAA section 112 HAP emissions 
factors of the various fuels from RICE, using the July 2000 revision of 
Chapter 3.2 (Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engines) and the October 1996 revision of Chapter 3.3 (Gasoline and 
Diesel Industrial Engines) of ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area 
Sources,'' we could not find a fuel that was clearly less HAP emitting. 
The summation of emission factors for various HAP when using natural 
gas (usually considered the cleanest fuel) or diesel fuel were 
comparable based on the emission factor information that is available. 
Therefore, we could find no basis to consider fuel switching as a 
beyond-the-floor HAP emissions reductions option.
    For existing compression ignition stationary RICE, we also 
considered another beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative, the use of 
C-DPF. Some believe the use of such filters will reduce HAP emissions; 
however, there are no data available to quantify what the level of the 
reduction might be. Most speculate that it is less than that achieved 
through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The cost of C-DPF, 
however, is greater than that of oxidation catalyst systems and, for 
that reason, we consider the alternative to also be inappropriate as 
well. Non-air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects 
were not significant factors.
    We conclude, therefore, that MACT for existing 2SLB and 4SLB 
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE is the MACT floor 
(i.e., no emissions reductions). As a result, we propose no 
requirements for emissions testing for existing 2SLB and 4SLB 
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE. For further 
information on the determination of MACT, refer to the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the proposed rule and memoranda entitled 
``Regulatory Alternatives and MACT for Stationary Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines'' and ``National Impacts Associated with 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket.
    For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control 
technology other than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching 
analysis presented previously also applies to existing 4SRB RICE. 
Therefore, we are unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory 
alternative for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Consequently, we 
conclude that MACT for existing 4SRB stationary RICE is also equivalent 
to the MACT floor (i.e., the level of HAP emission control achieved 
through the use of NSCR systems).
    To determine the level of performance associated with the use of 
NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE, we examined HAP emission data 
from the emissions database. We also examined a recent industry 
sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary 
RICE equipped with NSCR.
    Emission testing to measure HAP emitted from stationary RICE is 
very expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to 
continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined 
the emission data mentioned above to determine if a single pollutant 
could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions.
    We focused on CO emissions initially because CO is easy to measure. 
In addition, CEMS for CO emissions are readily available and, in most 
cases, the costs associated with their use are considered reasonable. 
Unfortunately, there is not a good relationship between CO emission 
concentration or CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions 
concentrations or HAP emissions reductions from 4SRB stationary RICE 
equipped with NSCR. Thus, CO emission concentration and CO emission 
reduction cannot serve as surrogates for HAP emissions for 4SRB 
stationary RICE.
    Next, we considered the use of formaldehyde concentration as a 
surrogate for all HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air 
pollutant present in the highest concentrations in emissions from 4SRB 
stationary RICE and, more importantly, the level of formaldehyde 
emissions are related to the level of other HAP emissions. When 
formaldehyde emissions are reduced through the use of NSCR systems, HAP 
emissions are reduced as well. Consequently, we conclude that 
reductions in formaldehyde emissions can serve as a surrogate for 
reductions in HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE operating with 
NSCR systems.

[[Page 77839]]

    The emissions database contains several emission test reports that 
measured formaldehyde emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with 
NSCR, but no tests measure the emissions both before and after the 
control device, so the control efficiency of NSCR systems could not be 
determined from the emissions database. Moreover, the test reports in 
the emissions database provide single snapshot emission readings from 
stationary RICE, which does not account for variability of emissions 
that may occur as engines are operated in actual use. The data, for 
example, provided little or no information regarding variable 
parameters such as timing and load. As a result, we examined data from 
an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB 
stationary RICE equipped with NSCR to determine the level of 
performance of NSCR systems. These test reports were reviewed, and we 
concluded that the engines and control devices were operated correctly 
during the tests and the tests were conducted properly. We considered 
several factors, such as load, which could have an effect on the 
efficiency of the control device, but could find no reason for the 
variability of the test results between the two engines.
    We selected the best performing engine based on the highest average 
formaldehyde percent reduction. The average reduction was 79 percent 
for that engine; however, to establish variability, we looked at each 
of the 12 individual test runs performed on that engine. The percent 
reduction varied from 75 percent to 81 percent. We selected 75 percent 
for the MACT floor, which takes into account the variability of the 
best performing engine. The HAP emission data outlined above show that 
the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE will reduce 
formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more. As a result, we propose a 
75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions as the emission 
limitation for existing 4SRB stationary RICE.
    For existing 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction 
technology that is not an NSCR system, an alternative standard was 
developed based on a formaldehyde concentration limit. For existing 
4SRB engines the alternative emission limitation is 350 ppbvd corrected 
to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit 
standard is discussed in more detail below.
5. New Source MACT Floor
    Several existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI 
stationary RICE currently operate with oxidation catalyst systems. No 
technology achieving greater emissions reductions was found. Thus, we 
conclude the MACT floor for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new 
CI stationary RICE is the level of HAP emission control achieved 
through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The level of HAP 
reductions achieved through oxidation catalysts differs for each of the 
subcategories as discussed in more detail below.
    Again, for new compression ignition stationary RICE, we considered 
whether the use of C-DPF might be the basis for the MACT floor. 
However, since oxidation catalyst systems achieve greater HAP emissions 
reductions, we concluded that oxidation catalyst systems, not C-DPF, 
are the basis for the MACT floor for new compression ignition 
stationary RICE.
    As mentioned earlier, a number of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use 
NSCR systems. As a result, the use of NSCR systems is the best 
performing technology identified for use by 4SRB stationary RICE. 
Consequently, we conclude the MACT floor for new 4SRB stationary RICE 
is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved through the use of 
NSCR systems.
6. New Source MACT
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, we know 
of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of oxidation 
catalyst systems (other than possibly the use of C-DPF on compression 
ignition stationary RICE, as discussed earlier). The fuel switching 
analysis presented previously also applies to new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI 
RICE. Therefore, we were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor 
regulatory alternative for these subcategories of stationary RICE. 
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary 
RICE and new CI stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor (i.e., 
the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation 
catalyst systems).
    Although the basis for MACT for each of these subcategories of 
stationary RICE is the same, as outlined below, HAP emission data from 
the emissions database and preliminary emission data from the HAP 
emission testing program at CSU indicate that the level of performance 
achieved by oxidation catalyst systems on each of these subcategories 
of stationary RICE differ. As a result, we propose different emission 
limitations for each of these subcategories of new stationary RICE.
    As mentioned above, emission testing to measure HAP emissions is 
expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously 
monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission 
data to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for 
HAP emissions.
    Again, we focused on CO emission concentration and CO emissions 
reductions initially. In this case, we found that there is a good 
relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions 
reductions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE 
equipped with oxidation catalyst systems. When CO emissions are 
reduced, HAP emissions are reduced in a relatively proportional manner. 
As a result, CO emissions reductions can serve as a surrogate for HAP 
emissions reductions for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI 
stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems.
    A joint EPA-industry HAP emission testing program at CSU provided 
HAP and CO emissions data which form the basis for the MACT floor and 
MACT for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE. A single engine of each 
type equipped with an oxidation catalyst control system was tested. The 
engines were all overhauled before the testing and were expected to 
operate as well as new engines. The oxidation catalyst control systems 
represented the best HAP emission control known for each type of 
engine. All catalyst systems were new but were operated for a number of 
hours until the CO percent reduction stabilized. This assured that the 
performance would be not overestimated by the use of a new catalyst. 
Prior to the testing, EPA and industry developed a list of engine 
operating parameters that were known to vary throughout the U.S. for 
each type of engine. The engines and control devices were tested at 
typical engine conditions in which these operating parameters were 
varied. The variations in the emission reduction results for each 
engine type are due to the variability of the engine and control system 
and include a representation of the performance of the best controlled 
source for new engines. The fluctuations in HAP emission control 
represent the variability inherent in operating the engine and control 
device combination under various conditions. Some parameters such as 
the exhaust temperature are an important determinate of the catalytic 
activity and resulting emissions reductions but

[[Page 77840]]

cannot be controlled by the operator because they are a result of 
factors such as engine design, ambient temperature, and designed air-
to-fuel ratio. These result in a significant source of variability that 
cannot be controlled.
    The HAP emission data mentioned above show that the use of 
oxidation catalyst systems on 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI 
stationary RICE will reduce uncontrolled CO emissions by 60 percent or 
more, 93 percent or more, and 70 percent or more, respectively, taking 
into account the variability of results achieved when tested under 
various operating parameters. As a result, we propose: (1) A 60 percent 
or more reduction in CO uncontrolled emissions as the emission 
limitation for new 2SLB stationary RICE, (2) a 93 percent or more 
reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new 4SLB 
stationary RICE, and (3) a 70 percent or more reduction in CO emissions 
as the emission limitation for new CI stationary RICE. The variation in 
percent reduction of CO achieved between 2SLB stationary RICE and 4SLB 
stationary RICE is a result of the higher exhaust temperatures for 4SLB 
stationary RICE. The 2SLB stationary RICE tested at CSU had an average 
exhaust temperature of 530 degrees Fahrenheit, while the 4SLB 
stationary RICE had an average exhaust temperature of 691 degrees 
Fahrenheit. In general, higher exhaust temperatures lead to better 
catalyst performance. This difference in temperatures is a function of 
the inherent design of these engine types and cannot be controlled by 
the operator.
    For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control 
technology than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis 
presented previously also applies to new 4SRB RICE. As a result, we 
were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative. 
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE is 
equivalent to the MACT floor (i.e., the level of HAP emission control 
achieved through the use of NSCR systems).
    The basis for MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE, therefore, is the 
same as that for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. We believe NSCR systems 
will achieve the same level of performance on existing as well as new 
4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we propose the same emission 
limitation for both existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE (i.e., 75 
percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions).
    For new 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction 
technology that is not an NSCR system, and for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI 
engines that choose a control or reduction technology that is not an 
oxidation catalyst system, an alternative standard was developed based 
on formaldehyde concentration limits. The alternative emission limits 
for new RICE sources are: 17 parts per million by volume dry basis 
(ppmvd) formaldehyde for 2SLB engines, 14 ppmvd formaldehyde for 4SLB 
engines, 350 ppbvd formaldehyde for 4SRB engines, and 580 ppbvd 
formaldehyde for CI engines, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The 
alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in 
more detail below.
7. MACT Floor and MACT for Other Subcategories
    Although the proposed rule applies to all stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at 
major sources excluding stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE 
test cells/stands, there are two subcategories of stationary RICE for 
which the appropriate emission standard is no emissions reductions; 
therefore, they would not be required to comply with any emissions 
limitations or operating limitations under the proposed rule. These 
subcategories are stationary RICE which combust digester or landfill 
gas as the primary fuel and emergency power/limited use stationary 
RICE.
a. Stationary RICE Combusting Digester or Landfill Gas
    Examination of the population database shows that there are no 
stationary RICE burning digester gas or landfill gas as the primary 
fuel operating with emission control technologies which reduce HAP 
emissions. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is 
no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary 
RICE.
    We considered the applicability of HAP emission control technology, 
such as the use of an oxidation catalyst system for example, to this 
subcategory of stationary RICE for beyond-the-floor controls. However, 
digester gases and landfill gases contain a family of silicon based 
compounds called siloxanes. Combustion of siloxanes can foul post 
combustion catalysts, rendering them inoperable within a short period 
of time. We considered pretreatment systems to remove siloxanes from 
the gases prior to combustion; however, we found no pretreatment 
systems in use and the long-term effectiveness is unknown. As a result, 
we know of no emission control technology which could be applied to the 
subcategory of stationary RICE to reduce HAP emissions.
    We also considered fuel switching for this subcategory of RICE. 
Switching to a different fuel such as natural gas or diesel would 
potentially allow the RICE to apply the MACT controls. However, fuel 
switching would defeat the purpose of these units, which are intended 
to use this type of fuel. Fuel switching would also cause the landfill/
digester gas either to escape uncontrolled or to be burned in a flare 
with no energy recovery. We believe that switching landfill or digester 
gas to another fuel is inappropriate and is an environmentally inferior 
option.
    For that reason, we were unable to identify a beyond-the-floor 
regulatory alternative for either existing or new stationary RICE 
combusting digester gases or landfill gases as the primary fuel. 
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for the subcategory of stationary 
RICE is the MACT floor (i.e., no emissions reductions). Thus, we 
propose no requirements for emissions testing for stationary RICE which 
combust landfill gases or digester gases as the primary fuels.
b. Emergency Power/Limited Use Stationary RICE
    Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE operate only in 
emergencies when the normal source of power at a facility fails. Based 
on our review of the population database, there are no emergency power/
limited use stationary RICE which operate with HAP emission control 
technology. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no 
emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE.
    As with stationary RICE burning digester gases or landfill gases, 
we also have a number of concerns regarding the applicability of HAP 
emission control technology to emergency power/limited use stationary 
RICE. Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE operate infrequently 
but when called upon to operate, they must respond immediately without 
fail and without lengthy startup periods. Under such conditions, we 
have doubts whether HAP emission control technology, such as the use of 
oxidation catalyst systems, would effectively reduce HAP emissions.
    Despite the concerns, we examined the cost per ton of HAP removed 
for emergency power/limited use stationary RICE as a beyond-the-floor 
regulatory alternative. Whether our concerns are warranted or not, we 
consider the cost per ton of HAP removed for the alternative 
unreasonable, primarily because of the very small reductions in

[[Page 77841]]

HAP emissions which might be achieved. Non-air quality health, 
environmental impacts, nor energy effects were significant factors.
    For all of the reasons listed above, we conclude that MACT for both 
existing as well as new emergency power/limited use stationary RICE is 
the MACT floor (i.e., no emissions reductions). Consequently, we 
propose no requirements for emissions testing for emergency power/
limited use stationary RICE.

D. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE of 500 Brake 
Horsepower or Less?

    In reviewing the population database to identify stationary RICE 
with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, 
we found extremely little information. In discussions with State and 
local permitting officials, the manufacturers, and some of the owners 
and operators of stationary RICE, we found that such small stationary 
RICE have generally not been regarded as significant sources of air 
pollutant emissions. As a result, the small stationary RICE have not 
been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, examination, or review as 
larger stationary RICE. Little information has been gathered or 
compiled by anyone for this subcategory of stationary RICE.
    Thus, at this point, we know very little about stationary RICE with 
a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less. For 
example, we do not know how many of the small stationary RICE exist. In 
addition, we know little about the operating characteristics and 
emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of, 
emission control technologies, the costs of emission control for the 
small stationary RICE, or the economic impacts and benefits associated 
with regulation. In the absence of such information, we have concerns 
with the applicability of HAP emission control technology to these 
stationary RICE. As a result, we believe it is appropriate to defer a 
decision on regulation of stationary RICE with a manufacturer's 
nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less until further 
information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed.
    We believe this subcategory of stationary RICE is likely to be more 
similar to stationary RICE located at area sources than to stationary 
RICE located at major sources. Thus, we plan to include this 
subcategory of stationary RICE in our considerations to develop 
regulations for stationary RICE located at area sources.

E. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE Located at 
Area Sources?

    The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at area 
sources. In developing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, July 
19, 1999), we identified stationary RICE at area sources as a category 
which would be subject to standards to protect the environment and the 
public health and satisfy the statutory requirements in section 112 of 
the CAA pertaining to area sources.
    We are not setting standards at this time, because of insufficient 
information regarding the operating characteristics and the emissions, 
the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control 
technologies to stationary RICE at area sources, the costs of emission 
control for such stationary RICE, and the economic impacts and benefits 
associated with regulation of the stationary RICE.

F. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

1. CO Percent Reduction Standard
    We are proposing a CO percent reduction standard if you use an 
oxidation catalyst to reduce HAP emissions from new or reconstructed 
2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. A control 
efficiency for CO was chosen because CO control is a surrogate for HAP 
control for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and 
because it is easier to monitor CO than several HAP.
2. Formaldehyde Percent Reduction Standard
    We are proposing a formaldehyde percent reduction standard if you 
use NSCR to reduce HAP emissions from existing, new, and reconstructed 
4SRB stationary RICE. A control efficiency for formaldehyde was chosen 
because formaldehyde control is a surrogate for HAP control for 4SRB 
stationary RICE, and because a good relationship was not found between 
CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions for 4SRB 
stationary RICE.
3. Formaldehyde Concentration Limit
    We are also proposing alternative emission limitations to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for new 
2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines not using oxidation catalyst control systems 
and for existing and new 4SRB engines not using NSCR control systems.
    If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI 
stationary RICE using an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the 
CO percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than an 
oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the alternative emission 
limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary 
RICE exhaust.
    If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE using NSCR, you must 
comply with the formaldehyde percentage emission limitation. If you use 
some means other than NSCR, you must comply with the alternative 
emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 
stationary RICE exhaust.
    As mentioned earlier, we know of no other emission control 
technology other than oxidation catalyst and NSCR systems which can be 
used to reduce HAP emissions from stationary RICE. However, we would 
like to promote the development and eventual use of alternative 
emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions, and we believe 
alternative emission limitations written as formaldehyde concentration 
limits will serve to do so.
    For the alternative emission limitation, we propose to use 
formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP. Formaldehyde is 
the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the highest concentrations from 
stationary RICE. In addition, the emission data show that formaldehyde 
emission levels and other HAP emission levels are related, in the sense 
that when emissions of one are lowered, emissions of the other are 
lowered. That leads us to conclude that emission control technologies 
which lead to reductions in formaldehyde emissions will lead to 
reductions in other HAP emissions.
    The alternative emission limitation is in units of parts per 
billion by volume or parts per million by volume, and all measurements 
are corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, to provide a common 
basis. A volume concentration was chosen for these emission limitations 
to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE 
exhaust because it can be measured directly.
    We utilized the same data used to establish the percent reduction 
requirements to determine the alternative emission limitation for each 
subcategory. As with the control efficiencies discussed previously, the 
concentrations for the formaldehyde emission limitations are based on 
the minimum level of control achieved by the best controlled source for 
each type of engine. This approach takes into account the variability 
of the best performing engine. For the 2SLB engine tested at CSU, the 
controlled

[[Page 77842]]

formaldehyde emissions ranged from 7.5 parts per million (ppm) to 17 
ppm; therefore, we selected 17 ppm for the emission limitation. The 
controlled formaldehyde emissions for the 4SLB engine tested at CSU 
ranged from 6.4 ppm to 14 ppm. We chose the highest controlled level of 
14 ppm for the alternative standard for the 4SLB subcategory. 
Similarly, for the CI engine tested at CSU, the controlled formaldehyde 
emissions ranged from 130 to 580 parts per billion (ppb), and we, 
therefore, set an emission limitation of 580 ppb for the CI 
subcategory. For 4SRB engines, we chose the best performing engine from 
the industry testing. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for this 
engine ranged from 330 to 350 ppb.
    In summary, the alternative emission limitations are: 17 ppmvd for 
2SLB stationary RICE; 14 ppmvd for 4SLB stationary RICE; 350 ppbvd for 
4SRB stationary RICE; and 580 ppbvd for CI stationary RICE, all 
corrected to 15 percent oxygen.

G. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The tests which formed the basis of the proposed emission 
limitations were conducted following EPA or CARB test methods. The 
proposed rule requires the use of EPA or CARB test methods to determine 
compliance. This ensures that the same analytical methods that were 
followed to collect the emission data upon which the emission 
limitations are based will be followed for compliance testing. By using 
the same methods, we eliminate the possibility of measurement bias 
influencing determinations of compliance.
    In an effort to identify the most feasible testing and compliance 
requirements for stationary RICE, we considered the applicability of 
several compliance and monitoring options. The results of these 
considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring 
requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings 
less than 5000 brake horsepower, and stationary RICE with 
manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake 
horsepower.
    We selected less burdensome compliance requirements for smaller 
size stationary RICE considering the ratio of total control and 
monitoring costs to the equipment cost. For smaller size stationary 
RICE, we considered the ratio excessive.
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with 
manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower 
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an 
oxidation catalyst, we decided to require an initial performance test 
for CO. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the CO percent reduction emission limitation; 
to establish the initial pressure drop across the catalyst, which will 
serve as the reference point for continuous monitoring of the pressure 
drop across the catalyst; and also to demonstrate that the catalyst 
inlet temperature is within the specified operating limitations.
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with 
manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake 
horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using 
an oxidation catalyst, an initial performance evaluation is required to 
validate the performance of the CEMS for continuous monitoring of CO 
emissions. Initial compliance with the CO emission limitation must then 
be demonstrated by using CO emission measurements from the first 4-hour 
period following a successful performance evaluation of the CO CEMS.
    For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to 
reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent using NSCR, an initial 
performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance 
test is to demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde percent 
reduction emission limitation and to establish the initial values of 
the operating parameters that will be continuously monitored (i.e., 
pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and 
the initial temperature rise across the catalyst).
    For all stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, an 
initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial 
performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the 
formaldehyde concentration limit and also to establish the values of 
the operating limitations (i.e., either operating load or fuel flow 
rate and any other parameters which are approved by the Administrator 
as operating limitations), which will be continuously monitored.

H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    Continuous compliance is required at all times except during 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE.
    As mentioned above, we considered the applicability of several 
compliance and monitoring options for stationary RICE. The results of 
these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and 
monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's 
nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower and stationary RICE 
with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 
brake horsepower.
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with manufacturer's 
nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the 
requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we 
considered several options: (1) A CEMS for CO; (2) semiannual stack 
testing for CO using Method 10A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and 
continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the 
catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; (3) quarterly stack 
testing with a portable CO monitor using American Society for Testing 
and Materials (ASTM) D6522-00, and continuous parametric monitoring of 
the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet 
temperature; and (4) initial stack testing for CO with a portable CO 
monitor using ASTM D6522-00 and continuous parametric monitoring of the 
pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature.
    We consider the control and monitoring costs for the first two 
options excessive, but consider the control and monitoring costs 
associated with the third option reasonable. As a result, 2SLB and 4SLB 
stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate 
ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the CO percent 
reduction emission limitation must perform quarterly stack testing for 
CO using a portable CO monitor. The quarterly testing will ensure, on 
an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the CO percent reduction 
requirement.
    In addition to quarterly stack testing for CO, the stationary RICE 
are required to continuously monitor pressure drop across the catalyst 
and catalyst inlet temperature. The parameters serve as surrogates of 
the oxidation catalyst performance.
    The pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the oxidation 
catalyst is damaged or fouled, in which case, catalyst performance 
would decrease. If the pressure drop across the catalyst deviates by 
more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the 
catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the oxidation 
catalyst might be damaged or fouled. If you

[[Page 77843]]

change the oxidation catalyst (i.e., replace catalyst elements), you 
must reestablish the pressure drop across the catalyst.
    The catalyst inlet temperature is a requirement for proper 
performance of the oxidation catalyst. In general, the oxidation 
catalyst performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature 
decreases. In addition, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high 
(above 1,250 degrees Fahrenheit), it might be an indication of ignition 
misfiring, poisoning, or fouling, which would decrease oxidation 
catalyst performance. In addition, the oxidation catalyst requires 
inlet temperatures to be greater than or equal to 500 degrees 
Fahrenheit for the reduction of HAP emissions.
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with a manufacturer's 
nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower 
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an 
oxidation catalyst, we considered the same four monitoring options. For 
these larger size stationary RICE, however, we consider the control and 
monitoring costs for a CO CEMS reasonable.
    We consider the use of CEMS to be the best means of ensuring 
continuous compliance with emission limitations. Consequently, the 
large 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE are required 
to use a CO CEMS. An annual RATA and daily and periodic data quality 
checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1, are 
also required to ensure that performance of the CEMS does not 
deteriorate over time. There are no operating limitations for the 
larger size stationary RICE in the subcategories since the CEMS 
continuously measures CO and will indicate any deviation from the 
emission limitations.
    For 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce 
formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, we also considered three monitoring 
options: (1) A CEMS for formaldehyde; (2) stack testing for 
formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW-846 Method 0011 with an initial frequency 
of semiannually which, following two consecutive stack tests 
demonstrating compliance, could decrease to annual stack testing and 
continuous parametric monitoring; and (3) initial stack testing for 
formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW-846 Method 0011 and continuous parametric 
monitoring.
    We consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the 
first option excessive for all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR. For 4SRB 
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of more than 
5000 brake horsepower, we consider the control and monitoring costs of 
the second option reasonable. Consequently, we chose that option for 
the larger size 4SRB stationary RICE.
    For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings 
less than 5000 brake horsepower, we also consider the control and 
monitoring costs of the second option excessive. We consider the 
control and monitoring costs of the third option reasonable, and we 
chose that option for the smaller 4SRB stationary RICE.
    For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to 
reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, monitoring the pressure drop 
across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature 
rise across the catalyst with a CPMS is also required. The operating 
parameters serve as surrogates of the NSCR system performance.
    As with oxidation catalyst systems for lean burn and CI stationary 
RICE, the pressure drop across an NSCR system is an indication of 
catalyst performance on 4SRB stationary RICE. The operating limitations 
are also the same--maintain the pressure drop across the catalyst 
within two inches of water from the pressure drop measured during the 
initial performance test. If you change your NSCR (i.e., replace 
catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop across the 
catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise 
across the catalyst.
    As for oxidation catalyst control devices, the performance of NSCR 
is also dependent on catalyst inlet temperature. Catalyst inlet 
temperature should be maintained between 750 degrees Fahrenheit and 
1250 degrees Fahrenheit for proper activation of the catalyst. 
Temperatures lower than that fail to activate the catalyst to its full 
potential, while temperatures higher than that can sinter and damage 
the active sites of the catalyst.
    In addition, the temperature rise across the catalyst is also an 
indication of NSCR performance. If the temperature rise across the 
catalyst is more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise 
across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, that 
might be an indication that the NSCR is being damaged or fouled. In 
that case, catalyst performance would decrease, lowering HAP 
reductions.
    For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust of the stationary RICE, we 
also considered requiring a CEMS. However, we consider the costs of a 
formaldehyde CEMS to be excessive. A reasonable alternative to a 
formaldehyde CEMS, however, is a CPMS (supplemented by periodic 
compliance tests).
    Hazardous air pollutant emissions from stationary RICE correlate 
with operating load; HAP emissions increase as load decreases. As a 
result, if a stationary RICE operates at loads greater than that at 
which compliance has been demonstrated through a performance test, 
there is a reasonable assurance that the stationary RICE remains in 
compliance. An alternative to monitoring operating load is monitoring 
the stationary RICE's fuel flow rate. Fuel flow rate is an indicator of 
operating load. As a result, we propose that stationary RICE which 
comply with the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE 
exhaust monitor continuously operating load or fuel flow rate as 
operating limitations.
    The intention is to measure formaldehyde at the lowest load at 
which the stationary RICE will be operated to establish compliance at 
that load level. By monitoring operating load or fuel flow rate, 
sources can ensure that they do not operate at load or fuel flow rate 
conditions (within 5 percent) below which compliance has not been 
demonstrated.
    In addition, sources complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust are 
required to conduct semiannual performance tests. Semiannual 
performance testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source 
is meeting the formaldehyde concentration limit.
    To reduce the cost burden of performance testing, sources that show 
compliance for two successive performance tests may reduce performance 
testing frequency. We believe that a reduction to one performance test 
per year will provide sufficient assurance of stationary RICE 
performance while reducing the performance testing costs for the 
affected source. However, if a subsequent annual performance test 
indicates a deviation from the formaldehyde concentration limit, the 
source must resume semiannual performance testing. The source must 
include a notification to the Administrator in their semiannual 
compliance report stating that they will be reducing the frequency of 
performance testing.

[[Page 77844]]

I. What Monitoring and Testing Methods are Available to Measure These 
Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde?

    We believe CEMS are available which can measure CO emissions at the 
low concentrations found in the exhaust from a stationary RICE 
following an oxidation catalyst control system. Our PS 4 and 4A for CO 
CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, however, have not been updated 
recently and do not reflect the performance capabilities of such 
systems at these low CO concentration levels.
    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 a stationary 
RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also solicit 
comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to 
our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to ensure 
the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to determine 
compliance with the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions. In 
addition, we solicit comments on the availability of instruments 
capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance 
specifications for CO CEMS.
    The proposed rule specifies the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the 
CO CEMS. We also believe Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is 
capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as those experienced in 
the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst 
control system. However, the performance criteria in addenda A of 
Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, have not been revised recently 
and are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at the 
low CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum 
detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target 
concentrations as low as 5 ppm CO in some cases. We also expect that 
dual range instruments will be necessary to measure CO concentrations 
at the inlet and at the outlet of an oxidation catalyst emission 
control device.
    As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on 
the changes we should make to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 
and the performance criteria in addenda A. We also solicit comments on 
the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they 
recommend to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the 
performance criteria in addenda A, while also meeting the remaining 
addenda A performance criteria.
    With regard to formaldehyde, we believe systems meeting the 
requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, a self-
validating FTIR method, can be used to attain detection limits for 
formaldehyde concentrations below 350 ppbvd. Method 320 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A, also includes formaldehyde spike recovery criteria 
which require spike recoveries of 70 to 130 percent.
    While we believe FTIR systems can meet Method 320 of 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A, and measure formaldehyde concentrations at the low 
levels, we have limited experience with their use. As a result, we 
solicit comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the 
validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR 
part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the 
emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions.
    We also believe EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and 
CARB Method 430 are capable of measuring formaldehyde concentrations at 
the low levels from 4SRB engines. Accordingly, we solicit comments on 
the use of EPA Method 323, CARB 430, and EPA SW-846 Method 0011 to 
determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde for 
4SRB engines.
    Based on the comments we receive on CO CEMS, we anticipate revising 
Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and our PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS to ensure the installation and use of 
CEMS suitable for determining compliance with the emission limitation 
for CO emissions. Similarly, based on the comments we receive on FTIR 
systems and Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, we may develop 
additional or revised criteria for the use of FTIR systems and/or 
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine compliance with 
the emission limitation for formaldehyde.
    On the other hand, if the comments we receive lead us to conclude 
that CO CEMS are not capable of being used to determine compliance with 
the emission limitation for CO emissions, there are several 
alternatives we may consider. One alternative would be to delete the 
proposed percent reduction emission limitation for CO and require 
compliance with a comparable formaldehyde percent reduction limitation. 
That alternative would require periodic stack emission testing before 
and after the control device and would also require owners and 
operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating 
limitations as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission 
limitation for formaldehyde. Another alternative would be to delete the 
proposed emission limitation for CO emissions and require compliance 
with the proposed emission limitation for formaldehyde. That 
alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and could 
also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for 
additional operating limitations.
    Another alternative would be to require the use of Method 320 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, (i.e., FTIR systems) to determine compliance 
with the emission limitation for CO emissions. That alternative could 
also require more frequent emission testing and require owners and 
operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating 
limitations, as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission 
limitation for formaldehyde.
    Yet another alternative would be to delete the emission limitations 
for both CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions and adopt an emission 
limitation consisting of an equipment and work practice requirement. 
That alternative would require the use of oxidation catalyst control 
systems for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and 
NSCR systems for 4SRB stationary RICE which meet specific and narrow 
design and operating criteria.
    We believe the emission limitations we are proposing for CO 
emissions and formaldehyde emissions are superior to these alternatives 
for a number of reasons. However, we solicit comments on the 
alternatives should we conclude that the proposed emission limitations 
for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are inappropriate because 
of difficulties in monitoring or measuring CO emissions or formaldehyde 
emissions to determine compliance. We also solicit suggestions and 
recommendations for other alternatives should we conclude the proposed 
emission limitations are inappropriate because of monitoring or 
measurement difficulties.

J. 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.

[[Page 77845]]

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The proposed rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary 
RICE by an estimated 5,000 tons/year in the 5th year after the 
standards are implemented. We believe approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB 
stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule. In addition, we 
believe that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 
RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule each 
year for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5th year, it is estimated 
that 8,100 new stationary RICE will be subject to the proposed rule.
    To estimate air impacts, HAP emissions from stationary RICE were 
estimated using average emission factors from the emissions database. 
It was also assumed that each stationary RICE is operated for 6,500 
hours annually. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum 
of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions 
reductions.
    In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the proposed rule will 
reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including CO, VOC, NOX, 
and particulate matter (PM). The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB 
engines (the technology on which MACT for 4SRB engines is based) will 
also reduce NOX emissions by 90 percent. It is possible that 
oxidation catalyst controls could be used to meet the 4SRB emission 
standards, but it is expected that the costs of controls will be 
similar for both systems. Assuming that 60 percent of the 4SRB (new and 
existing) engines that are covered by the emission standards will use 
NSCR, the cumulative emissions reductions of NOX by the end 
of the 5th year after promulgation are calculated to be about 167,900 
tons per year. We are specifically soliciting comments on the 
percentage of 4SRB engines that would choose to install NSCR HAP 
controls rather than other HAP controls.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    A list of 26 model stationary RICE was developed to represent the 
range of existing stationary RICE. Information was obtained from 
catalyst vendors on equipment costs for oxidation catalyst and NSCR. 
This information was then used to estimate the costs of the proposed 
rule for each model stationary RICE following methodologies from the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost 
Manual. These cost estimates for model stationary RICE were 
extrapolated to the national population of stationary RICE in the 
United States, and national impacts were determined.
    The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for existing 
stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $68 million, with a 
total national annual cost of $38 million in the 5th year. The total 
national capital cost for the proposed rule for new stationary RICE by 
the 5th year is estimated to be approximately $372 million, with a 
total national annual cost of $216 million in the 5th year.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and 
secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and 
consumers of RICE, and society as a whole. The affected engines operate 
in over 30 different manufacturing markets, but a large portion are 
located in the oil and gas exploration industry, the oil and gas 
pipeline (transmission) industry, the mining and quarrying of non-
metallic minerals industry, the chemicals and allied products industry, 
and the electricity and gas services industry. Taken together, these 
industries can have an influence on the price and demand for fuels used 
in the energy market (i.e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and 
coal). Therefore, our analysis evaluates the impacts on each of the 30 
different manufacturing markets affected by the proposed rule, as well 
as the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized 
social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the proposed rule is $254 million but 
this cost is spread across all 30 markets and the fuel markets. 
Overall, our analysis indicates a minimal change in prices and quantity 
produced in most of the fuel markets. The distribution of impacts on 
the fuel markets and the specific manufacturing market segments 
evaluated are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.

                   Table 1.--Economic Impact of Proposed RICE Rule on Affected Market Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total social
                                                                     Change in       Change in         cost
                          Market sector                             price  (%)     market output   (millions of
                                                                                        (%)           1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Markets: \a\
    Petroleum...................................................           0.005          -0.001            -6.0
    Natural Gas.................................................           0.101          -0.014           -35.2
    Electricity.................................................           0.022           0.001             3.2
    Coal........................................................           0.001           0.001             0.3
                                                                 -----------------
        Subtotal................................................  ..............  ..............           -38.3
Sectors of Energy Consumption: \b\
    Commercial Sector...........................................  ..............  ..............           -68.4
    Residential Sector..........................................  ..............  ..............           -40.0
    Transportation Sector.......................................  ..............  ..............           -16.2
Mining and Quarrying............................................           0.020          -0.006           -21.0
Food Products...................................................           0.001          -0.001            -5.9
Paper Products..................................................           0.001          -0.001            -5.2
Chemical Products...............................................           0.001          -0.002           -17.8
Primary Metals..................................................           0.001          -0.001            -6.7
Fabricated Metal Products.......................................           0.001          -0.000            -1.8
Nonmetallic Mineral Products....................................           0.002          -0.002            -3.5
Construction Sector.............................................           0.001          -0.001           -11.1

[[Page 77846]]

 
Other Manufacturing Markets.....................................           0.000       0.0-0.001          -17.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Only changes in producer surplus (i.e., producer's share of regulatory costs) are reported for the Fuel
  Markets which represent the producers of energy. Sectors of energy consumption--commercial, residential, and
  transportation--have reported changes in consumer surplus only, and thus do not have reported changes in price
  and output. A combination of these costs will represent total social costs for the energy market in the
  economy.

    Because the engines affected by the proposed rule are those that 
use natural gas as a fuel source, it is not surprising to see the 
natural gas fuel market with the largest portion of the social costs. 
Although the natural gas market has a greater share of the regulatory 
burden, the overall impact on prices is about one-tenth of 1 percent, 
which is considered to be a minor economic impact on this industry. The 
change in the price of natural gas is not expected to influence the 
purchase decisions for new engines. Our analysis indicates that at 
most, less than 5 fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines will be 
purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the proposed 
rule. The electricity and coal markets may experience a slight gain in 
revenues due to some fuel switching from natural gas to coal or 
electricity.
    The total social welfare loss for the manufacturing industries 
affected by the proposed rule is estimated to be approximately $39.9 
million for consumers and $44.7 million for producers in the aggregate. 
In comparison to the energy expenditures of these industries (estimated 
to be $101.2 billion), the cost of the proposed rule to producers as a 
percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.04 percent. For consumers, 
the total value of shipments for the affected industries is $3.95 
trillion in 1998, so the cost to consumers as a percentage of spending 
on the outputs from these industries is nearly zero, or 0.001 percent.
    The cost to residential consumers at $40.0 million is larger than 
for any individual manufacturing market, and about equivalent to the 
aggregate consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In 
comparison, the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is 
0.03 percent of residential energy expenditures ($40.0 million/$131.06 
billion). The commercial sector of energy users also experiences a 
moderate portion of total social costs at an estimated $29.3 million 
and represents an aggregate across all commercial North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. As a percentage of fuel 
expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is 
0.03 percent ($29.3 million/$96.86 billion). The cost to transportation 
consumers is estimated to be $16.2 million. This cost represents 0.008 
percent ($16.2 million/$188.13 billion) of energy expenditures for the 
transportation sector.
    Therefore, giving consideration to the minimal changes in prices 
and output in nearly all markets, and the fact that the regulatory 
costs that are shared by commercial, residential, and transportation 
users of fuel energy are a small fraction of typical energy 
expenditures in these sectors each year, we conclude that the economic 
impacts of the proposed rule will not be significant to any one sector 
of the economy.

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 the proposed rule. Energy impacts associated 
with the proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption 
that the proposed rule would require 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

A. General

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, 
such as the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations, 
recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well as aspects you may 
feel have not been addressed.
    Specifically, we 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 a stationary RICE following an 
oxidation catalyst control system. We also request comments with 
recommendations on changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO 
CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10. In 
addition, we request comments on the availability of instruments 
capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance 
specifications for CO CEMS, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 
and addenda A to Method 10.
    As also mentioned earlier, we request comments on the ability and 
use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance 
requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the 
purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitations for 
formaldehyde emissions. In addition, we request comments on the use of 
CARB 430 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for 
formaldehyde.
    In addition, we request any HAP emissions test data available from 
stationary RICE; however, if you submit HAP emissions test data, please 
submit the full and complete emission test report with these data. 
Without a complete emission test report, which includes sections 
describing the stationary RICE and its operation during the test as 
well as identifying the stationary RICE for purposes of verification, 
discussion of the test methods employed and the quality assurance/
quality control procedures followed, the raw data sheets, all the 
calculations, etc., which such reports contain, submittal of HAP 
emission data by itself is of little use.

B. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Rule in a Less Costly Manner?

    We have made every effort in developing the proposal to minimize 
the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in 
compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We 
recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities 
to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those 
emissions may not result

[[Page 77847]]

in exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk 
greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined 
to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and 
the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are, 
therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further 
ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which 
pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on 
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
    Representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry 
provided EPA with descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed 
could be used to implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. The 
docket for the proposed rule contains white papers prepared by industry 
that outline their proposed approaches (see docket number OAR-2002-
0059). These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory 
controls on facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the 
imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public 
health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the 
utility of each of these approaches with respect to the proposed rule.
    One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold 
pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would 
be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and 
112(c)(9); and, the third approach would involve the use of a 
concentration-based applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on 
whether these approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for 
information that could be used to support such approaches.
    The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is intended to 
reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major 
sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) of the CAA is 
intended to allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or 
subcategories of sources that pose less than a specified level of risk 
to public health and the environment. The EPA requests comment on 
whether the proposals described here appropriately rely on these 
provisions of CAA section 112. While both approaches focus on assessing 
the inhalation exposures of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically 
requests comment on the appropriateness and necessity of extending 
these approaches to account for non-inhalation exposures or to account 
for adverse environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests 
for comment noted in this section, we are also interested in any 
information or comment concerning technical limitations, environmental 
and cost impacts, compliance assurance, legal rationale, and 
implementation relevant to the identified approaches. We also request 
comment on appropriate practicable and verifiable methods to ensure 
that sources' emissions remain below levels that protect public health 
and the environment. We will evaluate all comments before determining 
whether either of the three approaches will be included in the final 
rule.
1. Industry Emissions and Potential Health Effects
    For the RICE source category, four HAP make up the majority of the 
total HAP. Those four HAP are methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 
acrolein. In accordance with section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA developed a 
list of 33 HAP which represent the greatest threat to public health in 
the largest number of urban areas. Three of the four HAP, acetaldehyde, 
acrolein, and formaldehyde, are included in the HAP listed for the 
EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program.
    In November 1998, EPA published ``A Multimedia Strategy for 
Priority, Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants''. 
The HAP emitted by RICE facilities do not appear on the published list 
of PBT compounds referenced in the EPA strategy.
    Two of the HAP, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, are considered to be 
nonthreshold carcinogens, and cancer potency values are reported for 
them in Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Acrolein and 
methanol are not carcinogens, but are considered to be threshold 
pollutants, and inhalation reference concentrations are reported for 
them in IRIS and by the California Environmental Protection Agency 
(CalEPA), respectively.
    To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the RICE source 
category, EPA performed a crude risk analysis of the RICE source 
category that focused only on cancer risks. The results of the analysis 
are based on approaches for estimating cancer incidence that carry 
significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. Based on the 
assessment, if the proposed rule is implemented at all affected RICE 
facilities, annual cancer incidence is estimated to be reduced on the 
order of ten cases/year. Due to the uncertainties associated with the 
analysis, annual cancer incidence could be higher or lower than these 
estimates. (Details of this assessment are available in the docket.)
2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 
112(d)(4) of the CAA
    The first approach is an applicability cutoff for threshold 
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) 
to establish standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants. A 
``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or 
dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a 
lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, CAA section 112(d)(4) allows 
EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, 
when establishing emission standards. Specifically, CAA section 
112(d)(4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are not based 
upon the MACT specified under CAA section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for 
which a health threshold has been established. Such standards may be 
less stringent than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted CAA section 
112(d)(4) to allow categories of sources that emit only threshold 
pollutants to avoid further regulation if those emissions result in 
ambient levels that do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin 
of safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper 
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual 
facilities within a source category that meet the CAA section 112(d)(4) 
requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this 
interpretation of the CAA section 112(d)(4) provision. One scenario 
would allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only 
threshold pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of 
threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the 
threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category 
is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the CAA 
section 112(d)(4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non-
threshold pollutants, using the one in a million cancer risk level for 
decision making for nonthreshold pollutants. A third scenario would 
allow a CAA section 112(d)(4) exemption at a facility that emits both 
threshold and nonthreshold pollutants. For those emission points where 
only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the 
threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the 
threshold

[[Page 77848]]

levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points could be 
exempt from the MACT standards. The MACT standards would still apply to 
nonthreshold emissions from other emission points at the source. For 
this third scenario, emission points that emit a combination of 
threshold and nonthreshold pollutants that are co-controlled by MACT 
would still be subject to the MACT level of control. However, any 
threshold HAP eligible for exemption under CAA section 112(d)(4) that 
are controlled by control devices different from those controlling 
nonthreshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and the facility 
would still be subject to the parts of the standards that control 
nonthreshold pollutants or that control both threshold and non-
threshold pollutants.
a. Estimation of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
    Under the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to 
determine that emissions of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by 
RICE sources at the facility do not result in exposures which exceed 
the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common 
approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air 
pollutant is to calculate a hazard quotient by dividing the pollutant's 
inhalation exposure concentration (often assumed to be equivalent to 
its estimated concentration in air at a location where people could be 
exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC). 
An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 
order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a 
lifetime, likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health 
effects in humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically 
establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical 
toxic effect derived from the lowest-or no-observed-adverse-effect 
level of a pollutant.\2\ A hazard quotient less than one means that the 
exposure concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC, and, 
therefore, presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health 
effects. A hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure 
concentration of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA 
guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants 
recommends calculating a hazard index by summing the individual hazard 
quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same 
target organ or system by the same mechanism.\3\ Hazard index (HI) 
values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below 
one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of 
adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause 
for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference 
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
    \3\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical 
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceaww1/pdfs/chem mix/chem mix 08 2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan 
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the IRIS. 
When a pollutant does not have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a 
pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA would have to determine whether a 
threshold exists based upon the availability of specific data on the 
pollutant's mode or mechanism of action, potentially using a health 
threshold value from an alternative source, such as the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) or the CalEPA. Table 2 of 
this preamble provides the RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the 
HAP emitted by facilities in the RICE source category. A unit risk 
estimate is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk 
estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a 
concentration of 1 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) in 
air.

         Table 2.--Dose-Response Assessment Values for HAP Reported Emitted by the RICE Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Reference concentration \a\   Unit risk estimate \b\ (1/
              Chemical name                 CAS No.             (mg/m\3\)                   ([mu]g/m\3\))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde.............................    75-07-0  9.0E-03 (IRIS)..............  2.2E-06 (IRIS)
Acrolein.................................   107-02-8  2.0E-05 (IRIS)..............  ............................
Formaldehyde.............................    50-00-0  9.8E-03 (ATSDR).............  1.3E-05 (IRIS)
Methanol.................................    67-56-1  4.0E+00 (CAL)...............  ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
  inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics
  and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It
  can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to
  reflect limitations of the data used.
b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure
  to an agent at a concentration of 1 [mu]g/m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as
  follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10-6 per [mu]g/m3, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per
  1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 microgram ([mu]g) of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of
  air. Unit Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit
  to the true value. (Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is
  likely to be less, but could be greater.
Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html)
ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html)
CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html)
HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB (=97-921199), July 1997)

    To establish an applicability cutoff under CAA section 112(d)(4), 
EPA would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for 
any threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to 
consider when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to 
ensure that the concentrations that would be established would protect 
public health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the 
approach EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a 
threshold air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard 
quotient, which is the exposure concentration divided by the RfC.
    The EPA's ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health 
effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by 
considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity \3\. The 
guidance also suggests, however, that when exposures to mixtures of 
pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. 
The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each

[[Page 77849]]

exposure route of interest, and for a single specific toxic effect or 
toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by 
the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that 
induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture 
is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or 
target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI 
calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, 
regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The 
guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which 
the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then 
the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the 
resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the 
calculation of an HI does not account for the fact that the potency of 
a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP 
potencies, an HI may potentially be underprotective.
b. Options for Establishing a Hazard Index Limit
    One consideration in establishing a hazard index limit is whether 
the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all the 
emitted HAP to which the public is exposed \4\. There are at least 
several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the CAA 
section 112(d)(4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, public 
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990), 
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at 
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted 
from RICE sources at the facility to be no greater than one. This 
approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures would 
be anticipated from other sources in the vicinity of the facility or 
through other routes of exposure (e.g., through ingestion).
    A second option is to adopt a default percentage approach, whereby 
the hazard index limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at 
some percentage of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach 
recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many 
sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every 
day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure 
or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual 
source, establishing a hazard index limit of 0.2 would account for an 
assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from 
that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will 
call all sources of HAP, other than the facility in question, 
background sources. If the facility is allowed to emit HAP such that 
its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures to 
threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially 
greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be 
protective of public health, since only HI values below one are 
considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. 
Thus, setting the hazard index limit for the facility at some default 
percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that 
total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility (i.e., in 
combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally 
not exceed one, and can generally be considered to be without 
appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
    The EPA requests comment on using the default percentage approach 
and on setting the default hazard index limit at 0.2. The EPA is also 
requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple 
of 1 would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff.
    A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature 
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of 
HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used 
to estimate the exposures to HAP from non-RICE sources in the vicinity 
of an individual facility. For example, the EPA's National-Scale Air 
Toxics Assessment (NATA) \5\ and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles \6\ 
contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the 
atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from RICE sources 
and from other sources (as determined from the literature or studies) 
would then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 1. The EPA 
requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index 
limit at 1 for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.
    \6\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their 
own facility-specific background HAP concentrations for use in their 
analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, the EPA requests 
comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA 
requests comment on how the analyses should take into account 
background exposure levels from air, water, food and soil encountered 
by the individuals exposed to RICE emissions. In addition, we request 
comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in 
exposures due to the use of a new or the increased use of a previously 
emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP.
    The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity 
of each of these or other approaches. Finally, EPA requests comment on 
how we should implement the CAA section 112(d)(4) applicability 
cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to 
individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process 
provide an appropriate mechanism?
c. Tiered Analytical Approach for Predicting Exposure
    Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under 
CAA section 112(d)(4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of 
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. 
The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach 
for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive 
refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive 
successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant 
concentrations in air and estimates of risk.
    As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple 
look-up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling 
conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited 
number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property 
line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look-up tables to 
determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a 
hazard index limit to be exceeded.
    A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening 
analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific but more 
resource-intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling 
procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions 
from the facility does not exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's 
guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered 
analysis.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to 
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E. 
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and 
implementing a tiered analytical approach for determining applicability 
of the CAA section 112(d)(4) criterion to specific RICE sources. It is 
also possible

[[Page 77850]]

that ambient monitoring data could be used to supplement or supplant 
the tiered modeling approach described above. It is envisioned that the 
appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be 
extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of 
monitoring in the determinations described above.
d. Accounting for Dose-Response Relationships
    In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as nonthreshold 
pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science 
and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and 
nonthreshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment \8\ suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-
response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible 
that dose-response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a 
dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. 
It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by 
this source category would determine that one or more of the 
carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a 
carcinogen that exhibits a non-linear dose-response relationship but 
does not have a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' 
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dose-response assessments for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are 
currently undergoing revision by the EPA. As part of this revision 
effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde and acetaldehyde as potential 
non-linear carcinogens. The revised dose-response assessments will be 
subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full 
consensus review, before adoption into the EPA Integrated Risk 
Information System. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus 
review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose-
response assessments could affect the potency factors of these HAP, as 
well as their status as threshold or nonthreshold pollutants. At this 
time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment 
by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and 
carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the 
World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health.
    The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the 
science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when 
making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA 
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a 
nonthreshold carcinogenic HAP (e.g., benzene, methylene chloride) at 
which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the approaches 
discussed in this section.
    If the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach were adopted, the proposed 
rulemaking would likely indicate that the requirements of the rule do 
not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered approach 
that includes EPA-approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, 
that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified hazard 
index limit.
3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
    The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of 
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to 
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a 
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT 
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: 
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``no source in the 
category * * * emits (carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which 
may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the 
individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such 
pollutants from the source''; (2) in the case of pollutants that cause 
adverse noncancer health effects, that ``emissions from no source in 
the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to 
protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and (3) in the 
case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that ``no 
adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any 
source.''
    Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper 
prepared by industry representatives (see docket number OAR-2002-0059), 
EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a 
subcategory of facilities within the larger RICE category that would 
meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely 
include the same requirements as described previously for the second 
scenario under the section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a facility would 
be in the low-risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants 
do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits and if its 
emissions of nonthreshold pollutants do not result in exposures which 
exceed a cancer risk level of 10-6. The EPA requests comment 
on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a 
facility be included in the low-risk subcategory.
    Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low-risk 
facility (i.e., if each met these criteria), the subcategory could be 
delisted in accordance with CAA section 112(c)(9), thereby limiting the 
costs and impacts of the proposed rule to only those facilities that do 
not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that 
the maximum potential effect of this approach would be the same as that 
of applying the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach that allows exemption of 
facilities emitting threshold and non-threshold pollutants if exemption 
criteria are met.
    Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would 
be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether 
they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate 
that they are eligible to be included in the low-risk subcategory would 
be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA 
solicits comment on implementing a risk-based approach for establishing 
subcategories of RICE facilities.
    Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low-risk subcategory 
under CAA section 112(c)(9) will necessarily involve combining 
estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to 
predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same 
tiered analytical approach described earlier in the CAA section 
112(d)(4) discussion for these determinations.
    One concern that EPA has with respect to the CAA section 112(c)(9) 
approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many 
of the facilities in the low-risk subcategory are well-controlled, that 
could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. 
One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be 
to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the 
entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low-risk 
subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. 
This would allow low risk facilities to use the CAA section 112(c)(9) 
exemption without affecting the MACT floor calculation. The EPA 
requests comment on this suggested approach.

[[Page 77851]]

    Another approach under CAA section 112(c)(9) would be to define a 
subcategory of facilities within the RICE source category based upon 
technological differences, such as differences in production rate, 
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions 
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. 
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish RICE subcategories 
based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be 
determined that each source in this technologically-defined subcategory 
presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could 
then be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112(c)(9). The EPA 
requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically-based 
subcategories that may include only low-risk facilities within the RICE 
source category.
    If the CAA section 112(c)(9) approach were adopted, the proposed 
rulemaking would likely indicate that the rule does not apply to any 
source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has 
been delisted under CAA section 112(c)(9).

C. Limited Use Subcategory

    We are soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use 
engines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer 
hours of annual operation). Units in this subcategory would include 
engines used for electric power peak shaving that are called upon to 
operate fewer than 876 hours per year. These units operate only during 
peak energy use periods, typically in the summer months. We believe 
that these infrequently operated units typically operate 10 percent of 
the year or less. While these are potential sources of emissions, and 
it is appropriate for EPA to address them in the proposed rule, the 
Agency believes that their use and operation are different compared to 
typical RICE. We believe that it may be appropriate for such limited 
use units to have their own subcategory. Therefore, we are soliciting 
comment on subcategorizing RICE having a capacity utilization of less 
than 10 percent.
    We have performed a preliminary MACT floor analysis on engines with 
under 10 percent capacity utilization that are in EPA's RICE database. 
This analysis indicates that existing units would have a floor of no 
emissions reductions and new units would have a floor equal to the 
performance of an oxidation catalyst system.
    We are interested in comments on creating a subcategory for limited 
use peak shaving (less than 10 percent capacity utilization) engines. 
We are interested in comments on the validity and appropriateness under 
the CAA for a subcategory for limited use peak shaving engines, data on 
the levels of control currently achieved by such engines, and any 
technical limitations that might make it impossible to achieve control 
of emissions from limited use peak shaving engines.

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 obligations 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 the proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because 
it could have an annual effect on the economy of over $100 million. 
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA 
responses are available in the docket.
    As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether 
to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not 
regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit-cost analysis 
in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. 
The following is a summary of the benefit-cost analysis.
    It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed 
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and several other HAP 
from some existing and all new internal combustion engines. 
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as ``probable human 
carcinogens'' based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 
years. These studies have determined a relationship between exposure to 
these HAP and the onset of cancer; however, there are some questions 
remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can 
be quantified in terms of dollars. Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP 
emitted from RICE sources are not considered carcinogenic but have been 
reported to cause several noncarcinogenic effects.
    The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from RICE 
are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, primarily 
CO, NOX, and PM, however, VOC are also reduced to a minor 
extent. It is estimated that CO emissions reductions totals 
approximately 234,400 tons/year, NOX emissions reductions 
totals approximately 167,900 tons/year, and PM emissions reductions 
totals approximately 3,700 tons per year. These reductions occur from 
new and existing engines in operation 5 years after the implementation 
of the rule as proposed and are expected to continue throughout the 
life of the engines and continue to grow as new engines (that otherwise 
would not be controlled) are purchased for operation. Human health 
effects associated with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system 
and CNS effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen content 
of blood and which can result in modification of visual perception, 
hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and cognitive 
ability. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM in the 
atmosphere, which produces a variety of health and welfare effects. 
Human health effects associated with NOX include respiratory 
problems, such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, or even death from 
complications. Welfare effects from direct NOX exposure 
include agricultural and forestry damage and acidification of estuaries 
through rain deposition of nitrogen; while fine PM particles created 
from NOX can reduce visibility in national parks and other 
natural and urban areas.
    At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate 
for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For 
NOX and PM, the Agency has conducted several analyses 
recently that estimate the monetized

[[Page 77852]]

benefits of these pollutant reductions, including: the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) of the PM/Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (1997), the NOX State Implementation Plan Call 
(1998), the section 126 RIA (1999), a study conducted for section 
812(b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (1990), the Tier 2/Gasoline 
Sulfur Standards (1999), and the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel Fuel 
Standards (2000).
    On September 26, 2002, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
released a report on its review of the Agency's methodology for 
analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air 
pollution. The report focused on EPA's approach for estimating the 
health benefits of regulations designed to reduce concentrations of 
airborne particulate matter (PM).
    In its report, the NAS said that EPA has generally used a 
reasonable framework for analyzing the health benefits of PM-control 
measures. It recommended, however, that the Agency take a number of 
steps to improve its benefits analysis. In particular, the NAS stated 
that the Agency should:
    (1) Include benefits estimates for a range of regulatory options;
    (2) Estimate benefits for intervals, such as every 5 years, rather 
than a single year;
    (3) Clearly state the project baseline statistics used in 
estimating health benefits, including those for air emissions, air 
quality, and health outcomes;
    (4) Examine whether implementation of proposed regulations might 
cause unintended impacts on human health or the environment;
    (5) When appropriate, use data from non-U.S. studies to broaden age 
ranges to which current estimates apply and to include more types of 
relevant health outcomes;
    (6) Begin to move the assessment of uncertainties from its 
ancillary analyses into its primary analyses by conducting 
probabilistic, multiple-source uncertainty analyses. This assessment 
should be based on available data and expert judgment.
    Although the NAS made a number of recommendations for improvement 
in EPA's approach, it found that the studies selected by EPA for use in 
its benefits analysis were generally reasonable choices. In particular, 
the NAS agreed with EPA's decision to use cohort studies to derive 
benefits estimates. It also concluded that the Agency's selection of 
the American Cancer Society (ACS) study for the evaluation of PM-
related premature mortality was reasonable, although it noted the 
publication of new cohort studies that should be evaluated by the 
Agency. Several of the NAS recommendations addressed the issue of 
uncertainty and how the Agency can better analyze and communicate the 
uncertainties associated with its benefits assessments. In particular, 
the Committee expressed concern about the Agency's reliance on a single 
value from its analysis and suggested that EPA develop a probabilistic 
approach for analyzing the health benefits of proposed regulatory 
actions. The Agency agrees with this suggestion and is working to 
develop such an approach for use in future rulemakings.
    In the RIA for the proposed rule, the Agency has used an interim 
approach that shows the impact of several important alternative 
assumptions about the estimation and valuation of reductions in 
premature mortality and chronic bronchitis. This approach, which was 
developed in the context of the Agency's Clear Skies analysis, provides 
an alternative estimate of health benefits using the time series 
studies in place of cohort studies, as well as alternative valuation 
methods for mortality and chronic bronchitis risk reductions.
    For today's action, we conducted an air quality assessment to 
determine the change in concentrations of PM that results from 
reductions of NOX and direct emissions of PM at all sources 
of RICE. Because we are unable to identify the location of all affected 
existing and new sources of RICE, our analysis is conducted in two 
phases. In the first phase, we conduct air quality analysis assuming a 
50 percent reduction of 1996-levels of NOX emissions and a 
100 percent reduction of PM10 emissions for all RICE sources 
throughout the country. The results of this analysis serve as a 
reasonable approximation of air quality changes to transfer to the 
proposed rule's emissions reductions at affected sources. The results 
of the air quality assessment served as input to a model that estimates 
the benefits related to the health effects listed above. In the second 
phase of our analysis, the value of the benefits per ton of 
NOX and PM reduced (e.g., $ benefit/ton reduced) associated 
with the air quality scenarios are then applied to the tons of 
NOX and PM emissions expected to be reduced by the proposed 
rule. We also used the benefit transfer method to value improvements in 
ozone based on the transfer of benefit values from an analysis of the 
1998 NOX SIP call. In addition, although the benefits of the 
welfare effects of NOX are monetized in other Agency 
analyses, we chose not to do an analysis of the improvements in welfare 
effects that will result from the proposed rule. Alternatively, we 
could transfer the estimates of welfare benefits from these other 
studies to this analysis, but chose not to do so because these studies 
with estimated welfare benefits differ in the source and location of 
emissions and associated impacted populations.
    Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a 
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some 
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as 
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific 
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. 
Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability 
to estimate changes in health and environmental effects, such as 
potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased 
exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature 
often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those 
health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. While these 
general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics 
literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting 
documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on 
the results of the benefit-cost analysis of today's action are the 
following:
    (1) The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories 
(e.g., health and ecological benefits of reduction in hazardous air 
pollutants emissions);
    (2) Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as 
population growth;
    (3) Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions 
inventories and air quality;
    (4) Uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of air quality 
monitoring data to some unmonitored areas required to better capture 
the effects of the standards on the affected population;
    (5) Variability in the estimated relationships of health and 
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; and
    (6) Uncertainties associated with the benefit transfer approach.
    Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit-cost analysis 
provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of 
the RICE NESHAP under two different sets of assumptions.
    We have used two approaches (Base and Alternative Estimates) to 
provide benefits in health effects and in

[[Page 77853]]

monetary terms. They differ in the method used to estimate and value 
reduced incidences of mortality and chronic bronchitis, which is 
explained in detail in the RIA. While there is a substantial difference 
in the specific estimates, both approaches show that the RICE MACT may 
provide benefits to public health, whether expressed as health 
improvements or as economic benefits. These include prolonging lives, 
reducing cases of chronic bronchitis and hospital admissions, and 
reducing thousands of cases in other indicators of adverse health 
effects, such as work loss days, restricted activity days, and days 
with asthma attacks. In addition, there are a number of health and 
environmental effects which we were unable to quantify or monetize. 
These effects, denoted by ``B'' are additive to both the Base and 
Alternative estimates of benefits. Results also reflect the use of two 
different discount rates for the valuation of reduced incidences of 
mortality; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines 
for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which 
is recommended by OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).
    More specifically, the Base Estimate of benefits reflects the use 
of peer-reviewed methodologies developed for earlier risk and benefit-
cost assessments related to the Clean Air Act, such as the regulatory 
assessments of the Heavy Duty Diesel and Tier II rules and the section 
812 Report to Congress. The Alternative Estimate explores important 
aspects of the key elements underlying estimates of the benefits of 
reducing NOX emissions, specifically focusing on estimation 
and valuation of mortality risk reduction and valuation of chronic 
bronchitis. The Alternative Estimate of mortality reduction relies on 
recent scientific studies finding an association between increased 
mortality and short-term exposure to particulate matter over days to 
weeks, while the Base Estimate relies on a recent reanalysis of earlier 
studies that associate long-term exposure to fine particles with 
increased mortality. The Alternative Estimate differs in the following 
ways: It explicitly omits any impact of long-term exposure on premature 
mortality, it uses different data on valuation and makes adjustments 
relating to the health status and potential longevity of the 
populations most likely affected by PM, it also uses a cost-of-illness 
method to value reductions in cases of chronic bronchitis while the 
Base Estimate is based on individual's willingness to pay (WTP) to 
avoid a case of chronic bronchitis. In addition, one key area of 
uncertainty is the value of a statistical life (VSL) for risk 
reductions in mortality, which is also the category of benefits that 
accounts for a large portion of the total benefit estimate. The 
adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of 
premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the 
economic and public policy analysis community. There is general 
agreement that the value to an individual of a reduction in mortality 
risk can vary based on several factors, including the age of the 
individual, the type of risk, the level of control the individual has 
over the risk, the individual's attitude toward risk, and the health 
status of the individual.
    The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the EPA 
Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently issued an advisory report which 
states that ``the theoretically appropriate method is to calculate WTP 
for individuals whose ages correspond to those of the affected 
population, and that it is preferable to base these calculations on 
empirical estimates of WTP by age'' (EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013). In 
developing our Base Estimate of the benefits of premature mortality 
reductions, we have appropriately discounted over the lag period 
between exposure and premature mortality. However, the empirical basis 
for adjusting the current $6 million VSL for other factors does not yet 
justify including these in our Base Estimate. A discussion of these 
factors is contained in the RIA and supporting documents. The EPA 
recognizes the need for additional research by the scientific community 
to develop additional empirical support for adjustments to VSL for the 
factors mentioned above. Furthermore, EPA prefers not to draw 
distinctions in the monetary value assigned to the lives saved even if 
they differ in age, health status, socioeconomic status, gender or 
other characteristic of the adult population. However, adjustments to 
VSL for age and life expectancy are explored in the Alternative 
Estimate.
    Given its basis in methods approved by the SAB, we employed the 
approach used for the benefit analysis of the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel 
Fuel standards conducted in 2000 to the RICE NESHAP discussed in this 
preamble. A full discussion of considerations made in our presentation 
of benefits is summarized in the preamble of the Final Heavy Duty 
Engine/Diesel Fuel standards issued in December 2000, and in all 
supporting documentation and analyses of the Heavy Duty Diesel Program, 
and in the RIA for the proposed rule.
    In addition to the presentation of quantified health benefits, our 
estimate also includes a ``B'' to represent those additional health and 
environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative 
incidence and/or economic value terms. A full appreciation of the 
overall economic consequences of the RICE NESHAP requires consideration 
of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards, 
not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in 
dollar terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not 
be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table 3 of 
this preamble.

[[Page 77854]]



                    Table 3.--Unquantified Benefit Categories from RICE Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Unquantified benefit      Unquantified benefit     Unquantified benefit
                                        categories associated    categories associated    categories associated
                                              with HAP                 with ozone                with PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Categories...................  Carcinogenicity           Airway responsiveness.   Changes in pulmonary
                                       mortality.               Pulmonary inflammation.   function.
                                      Genotoxicity mortality.   Increased                Morphological changes.
                                      Non-Cancer lethality.      susceptibility to       Altered host defense
                                      Pulmonary function         respiratory infection.   mechanisms.
                                       decrement.               Acute inflammation and   Cancer.
                                      Dermal irritation.         respiratory cell        Other chronic
                                      Eye irritation.            damage.                  respiratory disease.
                                      Neurotoxicity.            Chronic respiratory      Emergency room visits
                                      Immunotoxicity.            damage/Premature aging   for asthma.
                                      Pulmonary function         of lungs.               Lower and upper
                                       decrement.               Emergency room visits     respiratory symptoms.
                                      Liver damage.              for asthma.             Acute bronchitis.
                                      Gastrointestinal                                   Shortness of breath.
                                       toxicity.
                                      Kidney damage.
                                      Cardiovascular
                                       impairment.
                                      Hematopoietic (Blood
                                       disorders).
                                      Reproductive/
                                       Developmental toxicity.
Welfare Categories..................  Corrosion/deterioration.  Ecosystem and            Materials damage.
                                      Unpleasant odors.          vegetation effects in   Damage to ecosystems
                                      Transportation safety      Class I areas (e.g.,     (e.g., acid sulfate
                                       concerns.                 national parks).         deposition).
                                      Yield reductions/Foliar   Damage to urban          Nitrates in drinking
                                       injury.                   ornamentals (e.g.,       water.
                                      Biomass decrease.          grass, flowers,
                                      Species richness           shrubs, and trees in
                                       decline.                  urban areas).
                                      Species diversity         Commercial field crops.
                                       decline.                 Fruit and vegetable
                                      Community size decrease.   crops
                                      Organism lifespan         Reduced yields of tree
                                       decrease.                 seedlings, commercial
                                      Trophic web shortening.    and non-commercial
                                                                 forests.
                                                                Damage to ecosystems.
                                                                Materials damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our Base Estimate of benefits totals approximately $280 million 
when using a 3 percent interest rate (or approximately $265 million 
when using a 7 percent interest rate). The Alternative Estimate totals 
approximately $40 million when using a 3 percent interest rate (or 
approximately $45 million when using a 7 percent interest rate).
    Benefit-cost comparison (or net benefits) is another tool used to 
evaluate the reallocation of society's resources needed to address the 
pollution externality created by the operation of RICE units. The 
additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major 
sources of emissions from RICE units is compared to the improvement in 
society's well-being from a cleaner and healthier environment. 
Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by 
alternative ways to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy 
that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the 
proposed RICE NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimal 
level of control mandated by the Clean Air Act, or the MACT floor.
    Table 4 of this preamble presents a summary of the costs, emission 
reductions, and quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 5 of this 
preamble presents a summary of net benefits. Based on estimated 
compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted 
change in prices and production in the affected industries, the 
estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $254 million (1998$) as 
are discussed previously in this preamble.
    Unfortunately, the air benefits characterized in this analysis are 
limited by the data available on the numerous health and welfare 
categories for the affected pollutants and by the lack of approved 
methods for quantifying effects.
    Using the Base Estimate of benefits, the portion of total benefits 
associated with NOX and PM reductions exceed the estimated 
total costs of the proposed rule by $25 million + B when using a 3 
percent discount rate (or approximately $10 million + B when using a 7 
percent discount rate). However, using the more conservative 
Alternative Estimate of benefits, net benefits are negative. Under the 
Alternative Estimate, net benefits total -$215 million + B under a 3 
percent discount rate (or approximately -$210 million + B when using a 
7 percent discount rate). Approximately 90 percent of the total 
benefits ($255 million under the Base Estimate, and $35 million under 
the Alternative Estimate) are associated with NOX reductions 
from the 4SRB subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately 
10 percent of the total benefits ($25 million under the Base Estimate, 
and $5 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with the 
PM reductions from the compression ignition engine subcategory at new 
sources.
    In both cases, net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of 
the HAP and other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable 
omissions to the net benefits include all benefits of HAP and CO 
reductions, including reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity 
effects, and cardiovascular and CNS effects. It is also important to 
note that not all benefits of NOX reductions have been 
monetized. Categories which have contributed significantly to monetized 
benefits in past analyses (see the RIA for the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel 
standards) include commercial agriculture and forestry, recreational 
and residential visibility improvements, and estuarine improvements.

[[Page 77855]]



                                Table 4.--Summary of Costs, Emission Reductions, and Quantifiable Benefits by Engine Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total annualized    Emission reductions \A\ (tons/yr in    Quantifiable annual monetized benefits \B,C\ (million
                                        cost (million $/     the 5th year after promulgation)                        $/yr in the 2005)
            Type of engine                yr in the 5th  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           year after
                                          promulgation)     HAP        CO        NOX        PM            Base estimate           Alternative estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2SLB-New..............................                 3      250      2,025          0        0  B 1                           B 2
4SLB-New..............................                66    4,035     36,240          0        0  B 3                           B 4
4SRB-Existing.........................                38      230     98,040     69,900        0  $105 + B 5                    $15 + B 7
                                                                                                  $100 + B 6                    $15 + B 8
4SRB-New..............................                48      215     91,820     98,000        0  $150 + B 9                    $20 + B 11
                                                                                                  $140 + B 10                   $25 + B 12
CI-New................................                99      305      6,320          0    3,700  $25 + B 13                    $5 + B 14
    Total.............................               254    5,035    234,445    167,900    3,700  $280 + B                      $40 + B
                                                                                                  $265 + B                      $45 + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ For the calculation of PM-related benefits, total NOX reductions are multiplied by the appropriate benefit per ton value presented in Table 8-7 of
  the RIA. For the calculation of ozone-related benefits, NOX reductions are multiplied by \5/12\ to account for ozone season months and 0.74 to account
  for Eastern States in the ozone analysis. The resulting ozone-related NOX reductions are multiplied by $28 per ton. Ozone-related benefits are summed
  together with PM-related benefits to derive total benefits of NOX reductions. All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\B\ Benefits of HAP and CO emissions reductions are not quantified in this analysis and, therefore, are not presented in this table. The quantifiable
  benefits are from emissions reductions of NOX and PM only. For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a ``B'' to represent
  monetary benefits. A detailed listing of unquantified NOX, PM, and HAP related health effects is provided in Table 8-13 of the RIA.
\C\ Results reflect the use of two different discount rates; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses
  (U.S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).


        Table 5.--Annual Net Benefits of the RICE NESHAP in 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Million 1998$ A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs B..........................  $255
Social Benefits B, C, D:
    HAP-related benefits................  Not monetized
    CO-related benefits.................  Not monetized
    Ozone- and PM-related welfare         Not monetized
     benefits.
    Ozone- and PM-related health
     benefits:
        Base Estimate
            --Using 3% Discount Rate....  $280 + B
            --Using 7% Discount Rate....  $265 + B
        Alternative Estimate
            --Using 3% Discount Rate....  $40 + B
            --Using 7% Discount Rate....  $45 + B
Net Benefits (Benefits--Costs) C, D:
        Base Estimate
            --Using 3% Discount Rate....  $25 + B
            --Using 7% Discount Rate....  $10 + B
        Alternative Estimate
            --Using 3% Discount Rate....  --$215 + B
            --Using 7% Discount Rate....  --$210 + B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $5 million. Thus,
  figures presented in this chapter may not exactly equal benefit and
  cost numbers presented in earlier sections of the chapter.
B Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants,
  including HAP and CO, as well as NOx and PM 10. Benefits in this table
  are associated only with PM and NOx reductions.
C Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized
  in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been
  quantified and monetized are listed in Table 8-13. B is the sum of all
  unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
D Monetized benefits are presented using two different discount rates.
  Results calculated using 3 percent discount rate are recommended by
  EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
  Results calculated using 7 percent discount rate are recommended by
  OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us 
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.''
    The 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, 42 U.S.C. 7412, to 
establish the standards in the proposed rule. The proposed rule 
primarily affects private industry and does not impose significant 
economic costs on State or local governments. The proposed rule does 
not include an express provision preempting State or local regulations. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

[[Page 77856]]

the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the 
proposed rule, we consulted with representatives of State and local 
governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input into 
the development of the proposed rule. This consultation took place 
during the ICCR FACA committee meetings where members representing 
State and local governments participated in developing recommendations 
for EPA's combustion-related rulemakings, including the proposed rule. 
The concerns raised by representatives of State and local governments 
were considered during the development of the proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, we specifically solicit comment on the proposed rule from 
State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``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.''
    The 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. No 
known stationary RICE are located within the jurisdiction of any tribal 
government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the 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 proposed rule on children, and explain why the proposed 
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered.
    The Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health 
or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by the proposed 
rule present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited 
to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the 
Agency may not be aware, that assess the results of early life exposure 
to the pollutants addressed by the proposed rule and suggest a 
disproportionate impact.

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

    Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to 
prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of 
Energy Effects for certain actions identified as significant energy 
actions. Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines significant 
energy actions as any action by an agency (normally published in the 
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the 
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of 
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of 
proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action.
    While the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that the proposed rule is not 
a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy based on the Statement of Energy Effects for this action 
provided below.
    The RIA estimates changes in prices and production levels for all 
energy markets (i.e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal). 
We also estimate how changes in the energy markets will impact other 
users of energy, such as manufacturing markets and residential, 
industrial and commercial consumers of energy. The results of the 
economic impact analysis for the proposed rule are shown for 2005, for 
that is the year in which full implementation of the rule is expected 
to occur. These results show that there will be minimal changes in 
price, if any, for most energy products affected by implementation of 
the proposed rule. Only a slight price increase (about 0.001 percent to 
0.02 percent) may occur in three of the energy sectors: petroleum, 
electricity, and coal products nationwide, and approximately a one-
tenth of one percent (i.e., 0.10 percent) change in natural gas prices. 
The change in energy costs associated with the proposed rule, however, 
represents only 0.03 percent of expected annual energy expenditures by 
residential consumers in 2005, a 0.008 percent change for 
transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.03 percent of energy 
expenditures in the commercial sector. In addition, no discernable 
impact on exports or imports of energy products is expected. Therefore, 
the impacts on energy markets and users will be relatively small 
nationwide as a result of implementation of the proposed reciprocating 
internal combustion engines NESHAP.

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 proposed 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

[[Page 77857]]

any regulatory requirements that may 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 the proposed rule contains 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, we have prepared a written statement 
under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. The written 
statement is in the docket.
1. Statutory Authority
    As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority 
for the proposed rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA. Section 112(b) 
lists the 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by 
Congress to be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by 
NESHAP.
    Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP based on 
MACT which require existing and new major sources to control emissions 
of HAP. These NESHAP apply to all stationary RICE located at major 
sources of HAP emissions, however, only certain existing and new or 
reconstructed stationary RICE have substantive regulatory requirements.
    In compliance with section 205(a), we identified and considered a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory 
alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT 
floor for stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and 
least burdensome alternative.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
    The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the Agency's 
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Proposed RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on 
estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the proposed 
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected 
industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $254 
million (1998$).
    It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed 
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and other HAP from 
existing and new stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have 
been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, methanol 
and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several 
other toxic effects. The proposed rule will also achieve reductions in 
234,400 tons of CO, approximately 167,900 tons of NOX per 
year, and approximately 3,700 tons of PM per year. Exposure to CO can 
effect the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system. 
Emissions of NOX can transform into PM, which can result in 
fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as asthma or 
bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone causing 
several respiratory problems to affected populations.
    At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate 
for the benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For 
NOX and PM, we estimated the benefits associated with health 
effects of PM but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits of 
NOX (particularly those associated with ecosystem and 
environmental effects). Unquantified benefits are noted with ``B'' in 
the estimates presented below. Total monetized benefits are 
approximately $280 million + B (1998$) under our Base Estimate when 
using a 3 percent discount rate (or approximately $265 million + B when 
using a 7 percent discount rate). Under the Alternative Estimate, total 
benefits are approximately $40 million + B when using a 3 percent 
discount rate (or approximately $45 million + B when using a 7 percent 
discount rate). The approach to value benefits is discussed in more 
detail in this preamble under the Executive Order 12866. These 
monetized benefits should be considered along with the many categories 
of benefits that we are unable to place a dollar value on to consider 
the total benefits of the proposed rule.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is 
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed 
rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the 
future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously 
in this preamble.
    We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary 
effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, 
State or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), 
or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
    The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule 
on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the 
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of 
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods 
and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably 
feasible and that such effect is relevant and material.
    The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in 
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This 
analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on most 
of the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact 
analysis are summarized previously in this preamble.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of our prior 
consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials, 
summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize our 
response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of 
UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a 
proposal. Although the proposed rule does not affect any State, local, 
or tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air 
pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on the proposed 
rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, 
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other 
interested parties. We have added materials to the docket to document 
these meetings.
    In addition, we have determined that the 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 1966 (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

[[Page 77858]]

under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 
agency certifies that the proposed 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 fewer than 500 employees (for most affected 
industries); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
or 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. It should be noted that the proposed 
rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we 
applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small 
Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121, and classified by the 
NAICS. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses 
in most industries affected by the proposed rule as those with fewer 
than 500 employees. However, SBA has defined ``small business'' 
differently for a limited number of industries, either through 
reference to another employment cap or through the substitution of 
total yearly revenues in place of an employment limit. For more 
information on the size standards for particular industries, please 
refer to the regulatory impact analysis in the docket.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In support 
of this certification, EPA examined the percentage of annual revenues 
that compliance costs may consume if small entities must absorb all of 
the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Since many 
firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance costs to 
customers, actual impacts will frequently be lower than those analyzed 
here.
    As is mentioned in previous sections of this preamble, the proposed 
rule will set standards for only a limited set of existing units, 
specifically 4SRB units. For all other types of engines, the proposed 
rule would impose requirements only on new engines. The EPA identified 
a total of 26,832 engines located at commercial, industrial, and 
government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines, 
10,118 engines were excluded because the proposed regulation will not 
cover engines smaller than 500 horsepower or engines used to supply 
emergency/backup power. Of the 16,714 units remaining, 2,645 units had 
sufficient information to assign to model unit numbers developed during 
the cost analysis. These 2,645 units were linked to 834 existing 
facilities, owned by 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies were 
identified as small entities, and only 13 of them own 4SRB engines. 
These small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities. 
Further, assuming only 40 percent of the all RICE sources are located 
at major sources and, thus, affected by the regulation, about 16 of the 
39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small businesses would 
be located at major sources.
    Under this scenario, there are no small firms that have compliance 
costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and only two small firms owning 
4SRB engines that have impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. In 
addition to 12 small firms with 4SRB engines, there is one small 
government in the Inventory Database affected by the proposed rule. The 
costs to this city are approximately $3 per capita annually assuming 
their engine is affected by the proposed rule, less than 0.01 percent 
of median household income.
    Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the 
regulation will affect no small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales 
ratio (CSR) greater than 3 percent, while approximately 4 percent (2/
47) of small entities owning RICE greater than 500 horsepower will have 
compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper bound 
cost scenario. In comparison, the total existing population of engines 
with greater than 500 horsepower that are not backup units is estimated 
to be 22,018.
    Assuming the same breakdown of large and small company ownership of 
engines in the total population of existing engines as in the subset 
with parent company information identified, the Agency expects that 
approximately 17 small entities in the existing population of RICE 
owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost 
scenario where we assume all RICE owned by small entities are located 
at major sources.
    In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be 
affected because of the exclusion of engines with less than 500 
horsepower, the percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are 
affected by the proposed rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion 
of engines in the Inventory Database that are greater than 500 
horsepower and are not backup units (16,714/26,832, or 62.3 percent) 
and assuming that small companies own the same proportion of small 
engines (less than 500 horsepower) as they do of engines greater than 
500 horsepower, the Agency estimates that 628 small companies own RICE. 
Of all small companies owning RICE, 2.7 percent (17/628) are expected 
to have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario. 
If the percentage of RICE owned by small companies that are located at 
major sources is the same as the engine population overall (40 
percent), only about 1.1 percent of small companies owning RICE would 
be expected to have CSR greater than 1 percent.
    The average profit margin for the industries in our analysis is 
approximately 5 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit margin 
data, it seems reasonable to review the number of small firms with CSR 
above 3 percent in screening for significant impacts. In addition, 
based on the low number of affected small firms, the fact that no small 
firms have CSR between 3 and 5 percent, and the fact that industry 
profit margins average 5 percent, this analysis concludes that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of existing small entities.
    For new sources, it can be reasonably assumed that the investment 
decision to purchase a new engine may be slightly altered as a result 
of the proposed rule. In fact, for the entire population of affected 
engines (approximately 20,000 new engines over a 5-year period), 2 
fewer engines (0.01 percent) may be purchased due to changes in costs 
of the engines and market responses to the proposed rule. It is not 
possible, however, to determine future investment decisions by the 
small entities in the affected industries, so we cannot link these 2 
engines to any one firm (small or large). Overall, it is very unlikely 
that a substantial number of small firms who may consider purchasing a 
new engine will be significantly impacted, because the decision to 
purchase new engines is not altered to a large extent.
    In addition to this consideration of costs on some firms 
attributable to the proposed rule, EPA notes the proposed rule is 
likely to increase revenues for many small firms, including those not 
regulated by the proposed rule, due to a predictable increase in prices 
of natural gas in the industry. Although the proposed rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on 
small

[[Page 77859]]

entities. In the proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level of 
control allowed by the CAA (i.e., the MACT floor), and the minimum 
level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting by affected sources. 
In addition, as mentioned earlier in the preamble, new RICE units with 
capacities under 500 horsepower and those that operate as emergency/
limited use units are not covered by the proposed rule, provisions that 
should greatly reduce the level of small-entity impacts. We continue to 
be interested in reducing any remaining 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 the proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared (ICR No. 1975.01) and a copy may be obtained from 
Susan Auby by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 200, 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 not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    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 the 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 would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping 
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine 
compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to be 142,436 labor hours per year at a 
total annual cost of $15,998,347. The estimate includes a one-time 
performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time 
purchase and installation of bag leak detection systems; one-time 
submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual 
reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not 
followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; 
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs 
associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of 
the ICR are estimated at $5,436,882, with operation and maintenance 
costs of $1,208,206/yr.
    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. That includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on our need for the 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 U.S. 
EPA, Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20500; 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 
December 19, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 
effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in the proposed rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 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 us to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose in 
the rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; PS 3, PS 4A of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B; EPA SW-8 Method 0011, and ARB Method 430, 
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L 
Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted 
searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these 
EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were 
identified for EPA Methods 1A, 3B, PS 3, PS 4 of CFR part 60, and ARB 
Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources 
Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. The search and review 
results have been documented and are placed in the docket for the 
proposed rule.
    One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable, and 
we propose to use that standard in the proposed rule. The voluntary 
consensus standard, ASTM D6522-00 (2000)--Standard Test Method for 
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 procedure for use in 
determining carbon monoxide and oxygen concentrations the exhaust gases 
of reciprocating internal combustion engines.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standard we propose to use 
in the rule, this search for emission

[[Page 77860]]

measurement procedures identified ten other voluntary consensus 
standards. We determined that six of these ten standards were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the 
proposed rulemaking. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these 
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods 
are discussed below.
    Two of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed 
rulemaking because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently 
detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM 
E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method for Measuring 
Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb 
Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and 
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 Method 3A 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Four of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed 
rulemaking because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality 
control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance 
requirements: ASTM D3154-91, ``Standard Method for Average Velocity in 
a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for 
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas 
Concentration,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO 
10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated 
Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A; ISO 9096:1992, ``Determination of Concentration and 
Mass Flow Rate of Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts--Manual 
Gravimetric Method,'' for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    The following four of the ten voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are 
under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, 
``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and 
possibly 2) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary 
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and 
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A; ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' 
for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and Gas Research 
Institute, ``Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the 
Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A. While we are not proposing to include these four 
voluntary consensus standards in today's proposal, we will consider the 
standards when final.
    The consensus standard, GRI, ``Measurement of Formaldehyde 
Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method,'' is currently 
under our review as an alternative method for sampling formaldehyde 
emissions in the exhaust of natural gas-fired combustion sources. This 
standard is based on the ``Chilled Impinger Train Method for Methanol, 
Acetone, Acetaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Formaldehyde'' and is 
described by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement in its 
Technical Bulletin No. 684, dated December 1994. After EPA's review, if 
this GRI standard is determined to be technically appropriate for 
identifying formaldehyde emissions, it could be incorporated by 
reference for our regulatory applicability at a later date.
    For the voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6348-98, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' we have submitted comments to 
ASTM regarding EPA's technical evaluation of ASTM D6348-98. Currently, 
the ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is undertaking a revision of the ASTM 
standard in part to address EPA's comments. Upon successful ASTM 
balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with EPA's FTIR 
methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference 
for EPA regulatory applicability.
    We are taking comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in the proposed rulemaking and specifically invite the public to 
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commentors should also explain why the proposed regulation should adopt 
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's 
standards. 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, of 
40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Tables 4, 5, and 6 of proposed subpart ZZZZ list the EPA testing 
methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Under 
40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply 
to EPA for permission 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: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated 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 ZZZZ to read as follows:

Subpart ZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?
63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission and Operating Limitations

63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I 
meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or 
other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

[[Page 77861]]

63.6625 What are my monitor installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements?
63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations and operating limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations and operating limitations?

Notification, Reports, and Records

63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
63.6655 What records must I keep?
63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63

Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for 
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary 
RICE
Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for 
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary 
RICE
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for New 
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for New 
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Subsequent Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Initial Compliance with Emission 
Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.6580  What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?

    Subpart ZZZZ establishes national emission limitations and 
operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from 
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) located at 
major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart also establishes 
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and operating limitations.


Sec.  63.6585  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary 
RICE at a major source of HAP emissions, except if the stationary RICE 
is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/stand.
    (a) A stationary RICE is any internal combustion engine which uses 
reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and 
which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that 
stationary RICE are not self-propelled, are not intended to be 
propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or 
transportable as that term is identified in the definition of non-road 
engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
    (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, except that for oil and gas 
production facilities, a major source of HAP emissions is determined 
for each surface site.


Sec.  63.6590  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 stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP 
emissions, excluding stationary RICE being tested at a stationary RICE 
test cell/stand.
    (1) Existing stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is existing if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the stationary RICE before 
December 19, 2002. A change in ownership of an existing stationary RICE 
does not make that stationary RICE a new or reconstructed stationary 
RICE.
    (2) New stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is new if you commenced 
construction of the stationary RICE after December 19, 2002.
    (3) Reconstructed stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is 
reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in Sec.  
63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after December 19, 2002.
    (b) Exceptions. (1) A stationary RICE which meets either of the 
criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section 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.  63.6645(d).
    (i) The stationary RICE is an emergency power/limited use unit; or
    (ii) The stationary RICE combusts digester gas or landfill gas as 
the primary fuel.
    (2) A stationary RICE which meets any of the criteria in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section does not have to meet the 
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part.
    (i) The stationary RICE is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean 
burn (2SLB), an existing spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB), or a 
compression ignition (CI) stationary RICE; or
    (ii) The stationary RICE has a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 
less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower.


Sec.  63.6595  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) Affected sources. (1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, 
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating 
limitations no later than [3 years after the date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register].
    (2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE 
before [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating 
limitations in this subpart no later than [date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register].
    (3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after 
[date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you 
must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating 
limitations in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) Area sources that become major sources. If you have an area 
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that 
it becomes a major source of HAP, any existing, new, or reconstructed 
stationary RICE must be in compliance with this subpart when the area 
source becomes a major source.
    (c) If you own or operate an affected RICE, you must meet the 
applicable notification requirements in Sec.  63.6645 and in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A.

Emission and Operating Limitations


Sec.  63.6600  What emission limitations and operating limitations must 
I meet?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed spark 
ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major 
source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations 
in Table 1(a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 
1(b) of this subpart which apply to you.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB 
stationary RICE or a new or reconstructed CI

[[Page 77862]]

stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must 
comply with the emission limitations in Table 2(a) of this subpart and 
the operating limitations in Table 2(b) of this subpart which apply to 
you.
    (c) If you own or operate: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, 4SLB 
stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that 
combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel; an emergency 
power/limited use stationary RICE; a stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less; or a 
stationary RICE which is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/
stand, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations in 
Tables 1(a) and 2(a) of this subpart or operating limitations in Tables 
1(b) and 2(b) of this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.6605  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and 
operating limitations in this subpart that apply to you at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) If you must comply with emission limitations and operating 
limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary RICE, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.6610  By what date must I conduct the initial performance 
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

    You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial 
compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you 
within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified 
for your stationary RICE in Sec.  63.6595 and according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).


Sec.  63.6615  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    If you must comply with the emission limitations and operating 
limitations, you must conduct subsequent performance tests as specified 
in Table 3 of this subpart.


Sec.  63.6620  What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Tables 3 and 4 of 
this subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that 
this subpart specifies in Table 4.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance 
test required in this section, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3). Each 
test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (e)(1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine 
compliance with the percent reduction requirement:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19DE02.000


Where:

Ci = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control 
device inlet,
Co = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control 
device outlet, and
R = percent reduction of CO or formaldehyde emissions.

    (2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO) or formaldehyde 
concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst or 
non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) (whichever applies to you) to 
a dry basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon 
dioxide (CO2) if you are using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS).
    (f) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must 
petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations to be 
established during the initial performance test and continuously 
monitored thereafter; or for approval of no additional operating 
limitations. You must not conduct the initial performance test until 
after the petition has been approved by the Administrator.
    (g) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating 
limitations, your petition must include the information described in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as 
additional operating limitations;
    (2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and 
HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in 
these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to 
limit HAP emissions;
    (3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower 
values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these 
parameters in the operating limitations;
    (4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure 
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well 
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and 
instruments; and
    (5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for 
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these 
parameters.
    (h) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating 
limitations, your petition must include the information described in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of 
the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change 
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller 
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.) 
on a routine basis or over time;
    (2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in 
the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
    (3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to 
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing 
limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions;
    (4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to 
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper 
and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on 
the parameters in operating limitations;
    (5) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the methods you 
could use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor 
them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and 
instruments;
    (6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and 
methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor 
them; and
    (7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible 
or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.

[[Page 77863]]

Sec.  63.6625  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) If you are required to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 
of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to 
monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 at both the inlet and 
the outlet of the oxidation catalyst according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according 
to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B.
    (2) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation and an 
annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of each CEMS according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and according to the applicable 
performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B as well as 
daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 
60, appendix F, procedure 1.
    (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, with each representing a different 15-minute period, 
to have a valid hour of data.
    (4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2) 
and recorded in parts per million or parts per billion (as appropriate 
for the applicable limitation) at 15 percent oxygen or the equivalent 
CO2 concentration.
    (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter 
monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you 
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.8.


Sec.  63.6630  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations and operating limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and 
operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 5 of this 
subpart.
    (b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each 
operating limitation in Tables 1(b) and 2(b) of this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6645.

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.6635  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you 
must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is 
operating.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling the minimum 
data availability requirement. You must, however, use all the valid 
data collected during all other periods.


Sec.  63.6640  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and operating limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation and operating limitation in Tables 1(a) and 1(b) and Tables 
2(a) and 2(b) of this subpart that apply to you according to methods 
specified in Table 6 of this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1(a) and 1(b) and 
Tables 2(a) and 2(b) of this subpart that apply to you. These instances 
are deviations from the emission and operating limitations in this 
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.6650. If you change your catalyst (i.e., 
replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the values of the 
operating parameters measured during the initial performance test. When 
you reestablish the values of your operating parameters, you must also 
conduct a performance test to demonstrate that you are meeting the 
required CO or formaldehyde percent reduction applicable to your 
stationary RICE.
    (c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.
    (d) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
from the emission or operating limitations that occur during a period 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations.
    (e) If you are complying with the requirement to limit the 
formaldehyde concentration, you must conduct performance tests as shown 
in Table 4 of this subpart. Following the initial performance test, 
subsequent performance tests must be conducted at the lowest load. You 
must also conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum load 
or minimum fuel flow rate if you want to operate the stationary RICE at 
a load or fuel flow rate lower than that established during the initial 
performance test.
    (f) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet 
the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart that apply to you. If you 
own or operate an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB 
stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a 
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do 
not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart. If 
you own or operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or 
landfill gas as the primary fuel or an emergency power/limited use 
stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in 
Table 8 of this subpart, except for the initial notification 
requirements.

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.6645  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) 
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and 
(h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you must comply with the 
emission and operating limitations, and you start up your stationary 
RICE before [the effective date of this subpart], you must submit an 
Initial Notification not later than [120 days after date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed stationary RICE on or after the [date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 days after you become subject to this 
subpart.
    (d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are 
otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in 
accordance with Sec.  63.6590(b), your notification should include the 
information in Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v), and a statement that 
your stationary RICE has no additional requirements and explain the 
basis of the exclusion (for example, that it operates exclusively as an 
emergency/limited use stationary RICE).

[[Page 77864]]

    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (f) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this 
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according 
to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 
of this subpart that does not include a performance test, 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.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 
of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to 
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test 
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2).


Sec.  63.6650  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 7 of this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 7 of this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.6595 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 that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.6595.
    (2) The first 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 for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.6595.
    (3) Each subsequent 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 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 stationary RICE that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates 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 (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The Compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period, the compliance report must include the information in 
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission or operating 
limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no 
deviations from the emission or operating limitations during the 
reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
system (CMS), including CEMS and CPMS, was out-of-control, as specified 
in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during 
which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation 
that occurs for a stationary RICE where you are not using a CMS to 
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the 
Compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) The total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the 
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation 
occurring for a stationary RICE where you are using a CMS to comply 
with the emission and operating limitations in this subpart, you must 
include information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through 
(12) of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or 
during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) 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.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent 
of the total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the CMS 
downtime occurred during that reporting period.
    (8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant (CO or 
formaldehyde) that was monitored at the stationary RICE.
    (9) A brief description of the stationary RICE.
    (10) A brief description of the CMS.
    (11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected 
source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 7 of this subpart 
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 
Compliance report includes all required information concerning 
deviations from any emission or operating limitation in this subpart, 
submission of the Compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any 
obligation to report the same deviations

[[Page 77865]]

in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a 
Compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the 
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements 
to the permit authority.


Sec.  63.6655  What records must I keep?

    (a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, 
you must keep the records described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(3), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) 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, according to the requirement in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each CEMS or CPMS, you must keep the records listed 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., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3).
    (3) Requests for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for 
CEMS or CPMS as required in Sec.  63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Table 6 of this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each emission or operating 
limitation that applies to you.


Sec.  63.6660  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.6665  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 8 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If you own or operate an 
existing 2SLB, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing CI 
stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate 
rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do not need to comply with 
any of the requirements of the General Provisions. If you own or 
operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as 
the primary fuel or is an emergency power/limited use stationary RICE, 
you do not need to comply with the requirements in the General 
Provisions except for the initial notification requirements.


Sec.  63.6670  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart is implemented and enforced by 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 (as well as 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 whether 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 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission 
limitations and operating limitations in Sec.  63.6600 under Sec.  
63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.6675  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 as follows:
    Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major 
source as defined in part 63.
    Associated equipment as used in this subpart and as referred to in 
section 112(n)(4) of the CAA, means equipment associated with an oil or 
natural gas exploration or production well, and includes all equipment 
from the well bore to the point of custody transfer, except glycol 
dehydration units, storage vessels with potential for flash emissions, 
combustion turbines, and stationary RICE.
    CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by 
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
    Compression ignition engine means any stationary RICE in which a 
high boiling point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber 
ignites when the air charge has been compressed to a temperature 
sufficiently high for auto-ignition, including diesel engines and dual-
fuel engines.
    Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids or 
natural gas: after processing and/or treatment in the producing 
operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or 
other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or 
any other forms of transportation. For the purposes of this subpart, 
the point at which such liquids or natural gas enters a natural gas 
processing plant is a point of custody transfer.
    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 or 
operating 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
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation 
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Diesel engine means any stationary RICE in which a high boiling 
point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when the 
air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high for 
auto-ignition. This process is also known as compression ignition.
    Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained from the distillation of 
petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees 
Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2.
    Digester gas means any gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment 
formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials 
and composed principally of methane and CO2.

[[Page 77866]]

    Dual-fuel engine means any stationary RICE in which a liquid fuel 
(typically diesel fuel) is used for compression ignition and gaseous 
fuel (typically natural gas) is used as the primary fuel.
    Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE means any stationary 
RICE that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source when the 
primary power source for a facility has been rendered inoperable by an 
emergency situation. Examples include stationary RICE used when 
electric power from the local utility is interrupted, stationary RICE 
used to pump water in the case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency power/
limited use units also include units that operate less than 50 hours 
per year in non-emergency situations, including certain peaking units 
at electric facilities and stationary RICE at industrial facilities.
    Four-stroke engine means any type of engine which completes the 
power cycle in two crankshaft revolutions, with intake and compression 
strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the 
second revolution.
    Gaseous fuel means a material used for combustion which is normally 
a gas with a heating value at standard temperature and pressure.
    Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) means any air pollutants listed in 
or pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
    ISO standard day conditions means 288 degrees Kelvin (15 degrees 
Celsius), 60 percent relative humidity and 101.3 kilopascals pressure.
    Landfill gas means a gaseous by-product of the land application of 
municipal refuse formed through the anaerobic decomposition of waste 
materials and composed principally of methane and CO2.
    Lean burn engine means any two-stroke or four-stroke engine where 
the manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the 
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is greater than 1.1.
    Liquefied petroleum gas means any liquefied hydrocarbon gas 
obtained as a by-product in petroleum refining of natural gas 
production.
    Liquid fuel means any fuel in liquid form at standard temperature 
and pressure, including but not limited to diesel, residual/crude oil, 
kerosene/naphtha (jet fuel), and gasoline.
    Major Source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning 
as in Sec.  63.2, except that:
    (1) Emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production well 
(with its associated equipment (as defined in this section)) and 
emissions from any pipeline compressor station or pump station shall 
not be aggregated with emissions from other similar units, to determine 
whether such emission points or stations are major sources, even when 
emission points are in a contiguous area or under common control except 
when they are on the same surface site;
    (2) For oil and gas production facilities, emissions from 
processes, operations, or equipment that are not part of the same oil 
and gas production facility, as defined in this section, shall not be 
aggregated; and
    (3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol 
dehydration units, storage tanks with flash emissions potential, 
combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion engines shall 
be aggregated for a major source determination.
    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.
    Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and 
non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's 
surface, of which the principal constituent is methane. May be field or 
pipeline quality.
    Non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) means an add-on catalytic 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) control device for rich burn engines 
that, in a two-step reaction, promotes the conversion of excess oxygen, 
NOX, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) into 
CO2, nitrogen, and water.
    Oil and gas production facility as used in this subpart means any 
grouping of equipment where hydrocarbon liquids are processed, upgraded 
(i.e., remove impurities or other constituents to meet contract 
specifications), or stored prior to the point of custody transfer; or 
where natural gas is processed, upgraded, or stored prior to entering 
the natural gas transmission and storage source category. For purposes 
of a major source determination, facility (including a building, 
structure, or installation) means oil and natural gas production and 
processing equipment that is located within the boundaries of an 
individual surface site as defined in this section. Equipment that is 
part of a facility will typically be located within close proximity to 
other equipment located at the same facility. Pieces of production 
equipment or groupings of equipment located on different oil and gas 
leases, mineral fee tracts, lease tracts, subsurface or surface unit 
areas, surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or separate surface 
sites, whether or not connected by a road, waterway, power line or 
pipeline, shall not be considered part of the same facility. Examples 
of facilities in the oil and natural gas production source category 
include, but are not limited to, well sites, satellite tank batteries, 
central tank batteries, a compressor station that transports natural 
gas to a natural gas processing plant, and natural gas processing 
plants.
    Oxidation catalyst means an add-on catalytic control device for 
lean burn engines that controls CO and VOC by oxidation.
    Peaking unit or engine means any standby engine intended for use 
during periods of high demand that are not emergencies.
    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.
    Production field facility means those oil and gas production 
facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer.
    Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural 
gas, with the molecular structure C3H8, suitable 
for use in spark-ignited internal combustion engines.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Rich burn engine means any four-stroke spark ignited engine where 
the manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the 
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is less than or equal to 1.1.
    Spark ignition engine means a type of engine in which a compressed 
air/fuel mixture is ignited by a timed electric spark generated by a 
spark plug.
    Stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) means 
any reciprocating internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating 
motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not 
mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE 
are not self propelled, are not intended to be propelled while 
performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that 
term is identified

[[Page 77867]]

in the definition of non-road engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
    Stationary RICE test cell/stand means an engine test cell/stand, as 
defined in subpart PPPPP of this part, that tests stationary RICE.
    Stoichiometric means the theoretical air-to-fuel ratio required for 
complete combustion.
    Subpart means 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
    Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites, 
gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical 
location upon which equipment is physically affixed.
    Two-stroke engine means a type of engine which completes the power 
cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and 
compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust 
operations into a second stroke. This system requires auxiliary 
scavenging and inherently runs lean of stoichiometric.

Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63

Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for Existing,
       New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
[As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with the
 following emission limitations for existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB
                            stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             You must meet one of the
             For each . . .               following emission limitations
                                                      . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE................  a. Reduce formaldehyde
                                          emissions by 75 percent or
                                          more, if you use NSCR; or
                                         b. Limit the concentration of
                                          formaldehyde in the stationary
                                          RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or
                                          less at 15 percent O2, if you
                                          use means other than NSCR to
                                          reduce HAP emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for
  Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
[As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6600, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must comply
 with the following operating emission limitations for existing, new and
                   reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
             For each . . .                 operating limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with   a. Maintain your catalyst so
 the requirement to reduce formaldehyde   that the pressure drop across
 emissions by 75 percent or more using    the catalyst does not change
 NSCR.                                    by more than two inches of
                                          water from the pressure drop
                                          across the catalyst measured
                                          during the initial performance
                                          test; and
                                         b. Maintain your catalyst so
                                          that the temperature rise
                                          across the catalyst is no more
                                          than 5 percent different from
                                          the temperature rise across
                                          the catalyst measured during
                                          the initial performance test;
                                          and
                                         c. Maintain the temperature of
                                          your stationary RICE exhaust
                                          so that the catalyst inlet
                                          temperature is greater than or
                                          equal to 750[deg]F and less
                                          than or equal to 1250[deg]F.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with   a. Maintain an operating load
 the requirement to limit the             equal to or greater than 95
 concentration of formaldehyde in the     percent of the operating load
 stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd     established during the initial
 or less at 15 percent O2 using means     performance test; or
 other than NSCR to reduce emissions.    b. Maintain a fuel flow rate
                                          equal to or greater than 95
                                          percent of the fuel flow rate
                                          established during the initial
                                          performance test; and
                                         c. You must comply with any
                                          additional operating
                                          limitations approved by the
                                          Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for New and
    Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
[As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with the
 following emission limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn and
                  compression ignition stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
             For each . . .                 emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE................  a. Reduce CO emissions by 60
                                          percent or more, if you use an
                                          oxidation catalyst; or
                                         b. Limit concentration of
                                          formaldehyde in the stationary
                                          RICE exhaust to 17 ppmvd or
                                          less at 15 percent O2, if you
                                          use some means other than an
                                          oxidation catalyst to reduce
                                          emissions.
2. 4SLB stationary RICE................  a. Reduce CO emissions by 93
                                          percent or more, if you use an
                                          oxidation catalyst; or
                                         b. Limit concentration of
                                          formaldehyde in the stationary
                                          RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or
                                          less at 15 percent O2, if you
                                          use some means other than an
                                          oxidation catalyst to reduce
                                          emissions.
3. CI stationary RICE..................  a. Reduce CO emissions by 70
                                          percent or more, if you use an
                                          oxidation catalyst; or

[[Page 77868]]

 
                                         b. Limit concentration of
                                          formaldehyde in the stationary
                                          RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or
                                          less at 15 percent O2, if you
                                          use some means other than an
                                          oxidation catalyst to reduce
                                          emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for New and
    Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
   [As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6600, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you must
       comply with the following operating limitations for new and
    reconstructed lean burn and compression ignition stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
             For each . . .                 operating limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI  a. Maintain your catalyst so
 stationary RICE with a brake             that the pressure drop across
 horsepower <5000 complying with the      the catalyst does not change
 requirement to reduce CO emissions       by more than two inches of
 using an oxidation catalyst.             water from the pressure drop
                                          across the catalyst that was
                                          measured during the initial
                                          performance test; and
                                         b. Maintain the temperature of
                                          your stationary RICE exhaust
                                          so that the catalyst inlet
                                          temperature is greater than or
                                          equal to 500[deg]F and less
                                          than or equal to 1250[deg]F.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI  a. Maintain an operating load
 stationary RICE complying with the       equal to or greater than 95
 requirement to limit the concentration   percent of the operating load
 of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE   established during the initial
 exhaust.                                 performance test; or
                                         b. Maintain a fuel flow rate
                                          equal to or greater than 95
                                          percent of the fuel flow rate
                                          established during the initial
                                          performance test; and
                                         c. You must comply with any
                                          additional operating
                                          limitations approved by the
                                          Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Subsequent Performance Tests
[As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with the
           following subsequent performance test requirements]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Complying with the
         For each . . .           requirement to . .    You must . . .
                                           .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  Reduce CO           Conduct subsequent
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        performance tests
 brake horsepower <5000.           using an            quarterly.
                                   oxidation
                                   catalyst.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with a    Reduce              Conduct subsequent
 brake horsepower =5000.                         emissions 75        semiannually \a\.
                                   percent or more
                                   using NSCR.
3. Stationary RICE (all           Limit the           Conduct subsequent
 stationary RICE subcategories     concentration of    performance tests
 and all brake horsepower          formaldehyde in     semiannually \a\.
 ratings).                         the stationary
                                   RICE exhaust, if
                                   using means other
                                   than an oxidation
                                   catalyst or NSCR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests,
  you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to
  annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test
  indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the
  formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
  operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.


                     Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
  [As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for
                                               performance tests]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Complying with the                                           According to the
         For each . . .           requirement to . .    You must . . .        Using . . .          following
                                           .                                                  requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO        i. Measure the O2   (1) Portable CO     (a) Using ASTM
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer.    D6522-00 \b\.
 brake horsepower <5000.           using an            outlet of the                           Measurements to
                                   oxidation           oxidation                               determine O2 must
                                   catalyst.           catalyst.                               be made at the
                                                      and...............                       same time as the
                                                                                               measurements for
                                                                                               CO concentration.
                                                      ii. Measure the CO  (1) Portable CO     (a) Using ASTM
                                                       at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer.    D6522-00 \b\. The
                                                       the outlet of the                       CO concentration
                                                       oxidation                               must be at 15
                                                       catalyst.                               percent O2, dry
                                                                                               basis.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE.........  a. Reduce           i. Select the       (1) Method 1 or 1A  (a) Sampling sites
                                   formaldehyde        sampling port       of 40 CFR part      must be located
                                   emissions by 75     location and the    60, appendix A      at the inlet and
                                   percent or more     number of           Sec.                outlet of the
                                   using NSCR.         traverse points.    63.7(d)(1)(i).      NSCR.
                                                      and...............

[[Page 77869]]

 
                                                      ii. Measure O2 at   (1) Method 3A and   (a) Measurements
                                                       the inlet and       3B of 40 CFR part   to determine O2
                                                       outlet of the       60, appendix A.     concentration
                                                       control device.                         must be made at
                                                      and...............                       the same time as
                                                                                               the measurements
                                                                                               for formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iii. Measure        (1) Method 4 of 40  (a) Measurements
                                                       moisture content    CFR part 60,        to determine
                                                       at the inlet and    appendix A.         moisture content
                                                       outlet of the                           must be made at
                                                       NSCR.                                   the same time and
                                                      and...............                       location as the
                                                                                               measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iv. Measure         (1) Method 320 or   (a) Formaldehyde
                                                       formaldehyde at     323 of 40 CFR       concentration
                                                       the inlet and the   part 63, appendix   must be at 15
                                                       outlet of the       A, EPA SW-846       percent O2, dry
                                                       NSCR.               Method 0011 or      basis. Results of
                                                                           Method CARB 430     this test consist
                                                                           \a\.                of the average of
                                                                                               the three 1-hour
                                                                                               or longer runs.
3. Stationary RICE..............  a. Limit the        i. Select the       (1) Method 1 or 1A  (a) If using a
                                   concentration of    sampling port       of 40 CFR part      control device,
                                   formaldehyde in     location and the    60, appendix A      the sampling site
                                   the stationary      number of           Sec.                must be located
                                   RICE exhaust.       traverse points.    63.7(d)(1)(i).      at the outlet of
                                                      and...............                       the control
                                                                                               device.
                                                      ii. Determine the   (1) Method 3A or    (a) Measurements
                                                       O2 concentration    3B of 40 CFR part   to determine O2
                                                       of the stationary   60, appendix A.     concentration
                                                       RICE exhaust at                         must be made at
                                                       the sampling port                       the same time and
                                                       location.                               location as the
                                                      and...............                       measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iii. Measure        (1) Method 4 of 40  (a) Measurements
                                                       moisture content    CFR part 60,        to determine
                                                       of the stationary   appendix A.         moisture content
                                                       RICE exhaust at                         must be made at
                                                       the sampling port                       the same time and
                                                       location.                               location as the
                                                      and...............                       measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iv. Measure         (1) Method 320 or   (a) The stationary
                                                       formaldehyde at     323 of 40 CFR       RICE must be
                                                       the exhaust of      part 63, appendix   operating at the
                                                       the stationary      A; or Method CARB   lowest operating
                                                       RICE.               430 a (spark        load at which you
                                                                           ignition 4SRB       will operate the
                                                                           stationary RICE     stationary RICE;
                                                                           only); or EPA SW-   and Formaldehyde
                                                                           846 Method 0011.    concentration
                                                                                               must be at 15
                                                                                               percent O2, dry
                                                                                               basis. Results of
                                                                                               this test consist
                                                                                               of the average of
                                                                                               the three 1-hour
                                                                                               or longer runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ You may obtain a copy of ARB Method 430 from the California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
  Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, or you may download a copy of ARB Method 430 from ARB's web site
  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/vol3.htm).
\b\ You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM-D6522-00. You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 from
  at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
  West Conshohochen, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI
  48106.


[[Page 77870]]


  Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                  Limitations and Operating Limitations
   [As stated in Sec.  Sec.   63.6625 and 63.6630, you must initially
  comply with the emission and operating limitations as required by the
                               following]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You have
                                  Complying with the     demonstrated
         For each . . .           requirement to . .  initial compliance
                                           .               if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO        i. The average
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        reduction of
 brake horsepower <5000.           using an            emissions of CO
                                   oxidation           determined from
                                   catalyst.           the initial
                                                       performance test
                                                       achieves the
                                                       required CO
                                                       percent
                                                       reduction; and
                                                      ii. You have
                                                       installed a CPMS
                                                       to continuously
                                                       monitor catalyst
                                                       pressure drop and
                                                       catalyst inlet
                                                       temperature
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.6625(b); and
                                                      iii. You have
                                                       recorded the
                                                       catalyst pressure
                                                       drop and catalyst
                                                       inlet temperature
                                                       during the
                                                       initial
                                                       performance test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO        i. You have
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        installed a CEMS
 brake horsepower =5000.                         oxidation           monitor CO and
                                   catalyst.           either O2 or CO2
                                                       at both the inlet
                                                       and outlet of the
                                                       oxidation
                                                       catalyst
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.6625(a); and
                                                      ii. You have
                                                       conducted a
                                                       performance
                                                       evaluation of
                                                       your CEMS using
                                                       PS 3 and 4A of 40
                                                       CFR part 60,
                                                       appendix B; and
                                                      iii. The average
                                                       reduction of CO
                                                       calculated using
                                                       Sec.   63.6620
                                                       equals or exceeds
                                                       the required
                                                       percent
                                                       reduction. The
                                                       initial test
                                                       comprises the
                                                       first 4-hour
                                                       period after
                                                       successful
                                                       validation of the
                                                       CEMS. Compliance
                                                       is based on the
                                                       average percent
                                                       reduction
                                                       achieved during
                                                       the 4-hour
                                                       period.
3. 4SRB stationary RICE.........  a. Reduce           i. The average
                                   formaldehyde        reduction of
                                   emissions if        emissions of
                                   using NSCR.         formaldehyde
                                                       determined from
                                                       the initial
                                                       performance test
                                                       is equal to or
                                                       greater than the
                                                       required
                                                       formaldehyde
                                                       percent
                                                       reduction; and
                                                      ii. You have
                                                       installed a CPMS
                                                       to continuously
                                                       monitor catalyst
                                                       pressure drop and
                                                       catalyst
                                                       temperature rise
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.6625(b); and
                                                      iii. You have
                                                       recorded the
                                                       catalyst pressure
                                                       drop, catalyst
                                                       inlet temperature
                                                       and catalyst
                                                       temperature rise
                                                       during the
                                                       initial
                                                       performance test.
4. Stationary RICE..............  a. Limit the        i. The average
                                   concentration of    formaldehyde
                                   formaldehyde in     concentration,
                                   the stationary      corrected to 15
                                   RICE exhaust.       percent O2, dry
                                                       basis, from the
                                                       three test runs
                                                       is less than or
                                                       equal to the
                                                       formaldehyde
                                                       emission
                                                       limitation; and
                                                      ii. You have
                                                       installed a CPMS
                                                       to continuously
                                                       monitor
                                                       stationary RICE
                                                       operating load or
                                                       fuel flow rate
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.6625(b); and
                                                      iii. You have
                                                       recorded the
                                                       average
                                                       stationary RICE
                                                       operating load or
                                                       fuel flow rate
                                                       during the
                                                       initial
                                                       performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Emission
                  Limitations and Operating Limitations
   [As stated in Sec.   63.6640, you must continuously comply with the
    emissions and operating limitations as required by the following]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                  Complying with the      demonstrate
         For each . . .           requirement to . .      continuous
                                           .           compliance by . .
                                                               .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO        i. Conducting
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        quarterly
 brake horsepower <5000.           using an            performance tests
                                   ozidation           for CO to
                                   catalyst.           demonstrate that
                                                       the required CO
                                                       percent reduction
                                                       is achieved; and
                                                      ii. Collecting the
                                                       catalyst pressure
                                                       drop and catalyst
                                                       inlet temperature
                                                       data according to
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.6625(b); and
                                                      iii. Reducing
                                                       these data to 4-
                                                       hour rolling
                                                       averages; and
                                                      iv. Maintaining
                                                       the 4-hour
                                                       rolling averages
                                                       within the
                                                       operating
                                                       limitations for
                                                       the pressure drop
                                                       across the
                                                       catalyst and the
                                                       catalyst inlet
                                                       temperature
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       initial
                                                       performance test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO        i. Collecting the
 and CI stationary RICE with a     emissions if        monitoring data
 brake horsepower =5000.                         oxidation             63.6625(a),
                                   catalyst.           reducing the
                                                       measurements to 1-
                                                       hour averages,
                                                       calculating the
                                                       percent reduction
                                                       of CO emissions
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.6620; and
                                                      ii. Demonstrating
                                                       that the
                                                       oxidation
                                                       catalyst achieves
                                                       the required
                                                       percent reduction
                                                       of CO emissions
                                                       over the 4-hour
                                                       averaging period;
                                                       and

[[Page 77871]]

 
                                                      iii. Conducting an
                                                       annual RATA of
                                                       your CEMS using
                                                       PS 3 and 4A of 40
                                                       CFR part 60,
                                                       appendix B, as
                                                       well as daily and
                                                       periodic data
                                                       quality checks in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       40 CFR part 60,
                                                       appendix F,
                                                       procedure 1.
3. Spark ignition, 4SRB           a. Reduce           i. Collecting the
 stationary RICE.                  formaldehyde        pressure drop
                                   emissions if        across the
                                   using NSCR.         catalyst, the
                                                       catalyst inlet
                                                       temperature and
                                                       the temperature
                                                       rise across the
                                                       catalyst data
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.6625(b); and
                                                      ii. Reducing these
                                                       data to 4-hour
                                                       rolling averages;
                                                       and
                                                      iii. Maintaining
                                                       the 4-hour
                                                       rolling averages
                                                       within the
                                                       operating
                                                       limitations for
                                                       pressure drop
                                                       across the
                                                       catalyst, the
                                                       catalyst inlet
                                                       temperature and
                                                       temperature rise
                                                       across the
                                                       catalyst
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE with a    Reduce              Conducting
 brake horsepower =5000.                         emissions if        performance tests
                                   using NSCR.         for formaldehyde
                                                       to demonstrate
                                                       that the required
                                                       formaldehyde
                                                       percent reduction
                                                       horsepower is
                                                       achieved a
5. Stationary RICE..............  a. Limit the        i. Conducting
                                   concentration of    semiannual
                                   formaldehyde in     performance tests
                                   the stationary      for formaldehyde
                                   RICE exhaust.       to demonstrate
                                                       that your
                                                       emissions remain
                                                       at or below the
                                                       formaldehyde
                                                       concentration
                                                       limit a; and
                                                      ii. Collecting the
                                                       operating load or
                                                       fuel flow data;
                                                       and
                                                      iii. Reducing
                                                       operating load or
                                                       fuel flow data to
                                                       4-hour rolling
                                                       averages; and
                                                      iv. Maintaining
                                                       the 4-hour
                                                       rolling averages
                                                       equal to or
                                                       greater than 95
                                                       percent of the
                                                       operating
                                                       limitations
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       initial
                                                       performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you
  may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually.
  If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the
  stationary RICE is not in compliance with the formaldehyde emission
  limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you
  must resume semiannual performance tests.


      Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
    [As stated in Sec.   63.6650, you must comply with the following
                        requirements for reports]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must     You must submit
      You must submit a (n)          contain . . .     the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report............  a. If there are no  i. Semiannually
                                   deviations from     according to the
                                   any emission        requirements in
                                   limitations or      Sec.
                                   operating           63.6650(b).
                                   limitations that
                                   apply to you, a
                                   statement that
                                   there were no
                                   deviations from
                                   the emission
                                   limitations or
                                   operating
                                   limitations
                                   during the
                                   reporting period.
                                   If there were no
                                   periods during
                                   which the CMS,
                                   including CEMS
                                   and CPMS, was out-
                                   of-control, as
                                   specified in Sec.
                                     63.8(c)(7), a
                                   statement that
                                   there were not
                                   periods during
                                   which the CMS was
                                   out-of-control
                                   during the
                                   reporting period.
                                  or................
                                  b. If you had a     i. Semiannually
                                   deviation from      according to the
                                   any emission        requirements in
                                   limitation or       Sec.
                                   operating           63.6650(b).
                                   limitation during
                                   the reporting
                                   period, the
                                   information in
                                   Sec.
                                   63.6650(d). If
                                   there were
                                   periods during
                                   which the CMS,
                                   including CEMS
                                   and CPMS, was out-
                                   of-control, as
                                   specified in Sec.
                                     63.8(c)(7), the
                                   information in
                                   Sec.   63.6650(e).
                                  or................
                                  c. If you had a     i. Semiannually
                                   startup, shutdown   according to the
                                   or malfunction      requirements in
                                   during the          Sec.
                                   reporting period,   63.6650(b).
                                   the information
                                   in Sec.
                                   63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup,          a. Actions taken    i. by fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction         for the event.      telephone within
 report if you had a startup,     and...............   2 working days
 shutdown, or malfunction during                       after starting
 the reporting period.                                 actions
                                                       inconsistent with
                                                       the plan.
                                  b. The information  i. By letter
                                   in Sec.             within 7 working
                                   63.10(d)(5)(ii).    days after the
                                                       end of the event
                                                       unless you have
                                                       made alternative
                                                       arrangements with
                                                       the permitting
                                                       authorities.
                                                       (Sec.
                                                       63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77872]]


             Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ
        [As stated in Sec.   63.6665, you must comply with the following applicable general provisions:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     General provisions citation         Subject of citation       Applies to Subpart          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sec.   63.1.......................  General applicability    Yes....................
                                        of the General
                                        Provisions.
2. Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional terms
                                                                                          defined in Sec.
                                                                                          63.6675.
3. Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................
4. Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited activities    Yes....................
                                        and circumvention.
5. Sec.   63.5.......................  Construction and         Yes....................
                                        reconstruction.
6. Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
7. Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4).............  Compliance dates for     Yes....................
                                        new and reconstructed
                                        sources.
8. Sec.   63.6(b)(5).................  Notification...........  Yes....................
9. Sec.   63.6(b)(6).................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
10. Sec.   63.6(b)(7)................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................
                                        new and reconstructed
                                        area sources that
                                        become major sources.
11. Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)............  Compliance dates for     Yes....................
                                        existing sources.
12. Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)............  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
13. Sec.   63.6(c)(5)................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................
                                        existing area sources
                                        that become major
                                        sources.
14. Sec.   63.6(d)...................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
15. Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)............  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        maintenance.
16. Sec.   63.6(e)(3)................  Startup, shutdown, and   No.....................  No requirement for a
                                        malfunction plan.                                 startup, shutdown and
                                                                                          malfunction plan.
17. Sec.   63.6(f)(1)................  Applicability of         Yes....................
                                        standards except
                                        during startup
                                        shutdown malfunction
                                        (SSM).
18. Sec.   63.6(f)(2)................  Methods for determining  Yes....................
                                        compliance.
19. Sec.   63.6(f)(3)................  Finding of compliance..  Yes....................
20. Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)............  Use of alternate         Yes....................
                                        standard.
21. Sec.   63.6(h)...................  Opacity and visible      No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                        emission standards.                               part 63, does not
                                                                                          contain opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
22. Sec.   63.6(i)...................  Compliance extension     Yes....................
                                        procedures and
                                        criteria.
23. Sec.   63.6(j)...................  Presidential compliance  Yes....................
                                        exemption.
24. Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)............  Performance test dates.  Yes....................
25. Sec.   63.7(a)(3)................  Section 114 authority..  Yes....................
26. Sec.   63.7(b)(1)................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
27. Sec.   63.7(b)(2)................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        rescheduling.
28. Sec.   63.7(c)...................  Quality assurance/test   Yes....................
                                        plan.
29. Sec.   63.7(d)...................  Testing facilities.....  Yes....................
30. Sec.   63.7(e)(1)................  Conditions for           Yes....................  Except that testing is
                                        conducting performance                            required under lowest
                                        tests.                                            load conditions for
                                                                                          some regulatory
                                                                                          alternatives.
31. Sec.   63.7(e)(2)................  Conditions for           Yes....................
                                        conducting performance
                                        tests.
32. Sec.   63.7(e)(3)................  Test run duration......  Yes....................
33. Sec.   63.7(e)(4)................  Administrator may        Yes....................
                                        require other testing
                                        under section 114 of
                                        the CAA.
34. Sec.   63.7(f)...................  Alternative test method  Yes....................
                                        provisions.
35. Sec.   63.7(g)...................  Performance test data    Yes....................
                                        analysis,
                                        recordkeeping, and
                                        reporting.
36. Sec.   63.7(h)...................  Waiver of tests........  Yes....................
37. Sec.   63.8(a)(1)................  Applicability of         Yes....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                        monitoring                                        part 63, contains
                                        requirements.                                     specific requirements
                                                                                          for monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                            63.6625.
38. Sec.   63.8(a)(2)................  Performance              Yes....................
                                        specifications.
39. Sec.   63.8(a)(3)................  [Reserved].............
40. Sec.   63.8(a)(4)................  Monitoring with flares.  No.....................
41. Sec.   63.8(b)(1)................  Monitoring.............  Yes....................
42. Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)............  Multiple effluents and   Yes....................
                                        multiple monitoring
                                        systems.
43. Sec.   63.8(c)(1)................  Monitoring system        Yes....................
                                        operation and
                                        maintenance.
44. Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).............  Routine and predictable  Yes....................
                                        SSM.

[[Page 77873]]

 
45. Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)............  SSM not in Startup       Yes....................
                                        Shutdown Malfunction
                                        Plan.
46. Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...........  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        operation and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
47. Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)............  Monitoring system        Yes....................
                                        installation.
48. Sec.   63.8(c)(4)................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  Except that Subpart
                                        system (CMS)                                      ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63,
                                        requirements.                                     does not require
                                                                                          Continuous Opacity
                                                                                          Monitoring System
                                                                                          (COMS).
49. Sec.   63.8(c)(5)................  COMS minimum procedures  No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 63, does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
50. Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)............  CMS requirements.......  Yes....................  Except that Subpart
                                                                                          ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63,
                                                                                          does not require COMS.
51. Sec.   63.8(d)...................  CMS quality control....  Yes....................
52. Sec.   63.8(e)...................  CMS performance          Yes....................  Except for Sec.
                                        evaluation.                                       63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                          applies to COMS.
53. Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)............  Alternative monitoring   Yes....................
                                        method.
54. Sec.   63.8(f)(6)................  Alternative to relative  Yes....................
                                        accuracy test.
55. Sec.   63.8(g)...................  Data reduction.........  Yes....................  Except that provisions
                                                                                          for COMS are not
                                                                                          applicable. Averaging
                                                                                          periods for
                                                                                          demonstrating
                                                                                          compliance are
                                                                                          specified at Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.6635 and
                                                                                          63.6640.
56. Sec.   63.9(a)...................  Applicability and State  Yes....................
                                        delegation of
                                        notification
                                        requirements.
57. Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)............  Initial notifications..  Yes....................
58. Sec.   63.9(c)...................  Request for compliance   Yes....................
                                        extension.
59. Sec.   63.9(d)...................  Notification of special  Yes....................
                                        compliance
                                        requirements for new
                                        sources.
60. Sec.   63.9(e)...................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
61. Sec.   63.9(f)...................  Notification of visible  No.....................
                                        emission (VE)/opacity
                                        test.
62. Sec.   63.9(g)(1)................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance evaluation.
63. Sec.   63.9(g)(2)................  Notification of use of   No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                        COMS data.                                        part 63, does not
                                                                                          contain opacity or VE
                                                                                          standards.
64. Sec.   63.9(g)(3)................  Notification that        Yes....................  If alternative is in
                                        criterion for                                     use.
                                        alternative to RATA is
                                        exceeded.
65. Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)............  Notification of          Yes....................  Except that
                                        compliance status.                                notifications for
                                                                                          sources using a CEMS
                                                                                          are due 30 days after
                                                                                          completion of
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
66. Sec.   63.9(i)...................  Adjustment of submittal  Yes....................
                                        deadlines.
67. Sec.   63.9(j)...................  Change in previous       Yes....................
                                        information.
68. Sec.   63.10(a)..................  Administrative           Yes....................
                                        provisions for record
                                        keeping/reporting.
69. Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...............  Record retention.......  Yes....................
70. Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)........  Records related to SSM.  Yes....................
71. Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)......  Records................  Yes....................
72. Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)..........  Record when under        Yes....................
                                        waiver.
73. Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).........  Records when using       Yes....................  For CO standard if
                                        alternative to RATA.                              using RATA
                                                                                          alternative.
74. Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..........  Records of supporting    Yes....................
                                        documentation.
75. Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...............  Records of               Yes....................
                                        applicability
                                        determination.
76. Sec.   63.10(c)..................  Additional records for   Yes....................
                                        sources using CEMS.
77. Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...............  General reporting        Yes....................
                                        requirements.
78. Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...............  Report of performance    Yes....................
                                        test results.
79. Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...............  Reporting opacity or VE  No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                        observations.                                     part 63, does not
                                                                                          contain opacity or VE
                                                                                          standards.
80. Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...............  Progress reports.......  Yes....................
81. Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...............  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................
                                        malfunction reports.
82. Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)....  Additional CMS reports.  Yes....................

[[Page 77874]]

 
83. Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)...........  COMS-related report....  No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 63, does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
84. Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...............  Excess emission and      Yes....................
                                        parameter exceedances
                                        reports.
85. Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...............  Reporting COMS data....  No.....................  Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 63, does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
86. Sec.   63.10(f)..................  Waiver for               Yes....................
                                        recordkeeping/
                                        reporting.
87. Sec.   63.11.....................  Flares.................  No.....................
88. Sec.   63.12.....................  State authority and      Yes....................
                                        delegations.
89. Sec.   63.13.....................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
90. Sec.   63.14.....................  Incorporation by         Yes....................
                                        reference.
91. Sec.   63.15.....................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-31232 Filed 12-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P