[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33474-33522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4816]



[[Page 33473]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 33474]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0059; FRL-7630-8]
RIN 2060-AG-63


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal 
combustion engines (RICE) with a site-rating of more than 500 brake 
horsepower (HP). We have identified stationary RICE as major sources of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions such as formaldehyde, 
acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The NESHAP will 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 final rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and 
economic impacts presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. 
The final rule will protect public health by reducing exposure to air 
pollution, by reducing total national HAP emissions by an estimated 
5,600 tons per year (tpy) in the 5th year after the rule is 
promulgated. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards will 
provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: The final rule is effective August 16, 2004. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule are 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059 and Docket ID No. A-95-
35 contain supporting information used in developing the standards. The 
dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 in room B102, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. For information concerning the analyses 
performed in developing the NESHAP, 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 SIC     NAICS    Examples of regulated
           Category             \1\      \2\            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any industry using a            4911     2211   Electric power
 stationary RICE as defined                      generation,
 in the final rule.                              transmission, or
                                                 distribution.
                                 4922    48621   Natural gas
                                                 transmission.
                                 1311   211111   Crude petroleum and
                                                 natural gas production.
                                 1321   211112   Natural gas liquids
                                                 producers.
                                 9711    92811   National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\2\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.6585 of the 
final 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 including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059 and Docket ID No. A-
95-35. The official public docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. All items may not be 
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect 
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials 
relevant to the final rule. 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 B102, 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 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. 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. Once in 
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by August 16, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only 
an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal

[[Page 33475]]

proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
    Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for 
stationary RICE on December 19, 2002 (67 FR 77830), and received 64 
comment letters on the proposal. A background information document 
(BID) (``National Emission Standards for Stationary Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines, Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public comment is 
available in Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from 
Stationary RICE?
    D. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source 
Category?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What Sources Are Subject to the Final Rule?
    B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the 
Final 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 Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements?
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Emission Limitations
    B. Operating Limitations
    C. Testing and Monitoring
    D. Other
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. Dates
    D. Emission Limitations
    E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    F. Testing
    G. Risk-Based Approaches
    H. Other
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy 
Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

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

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The 
stationary RICE source category was listed as a major source category 
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that 
have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy 
of any combination of HAP.

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

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

    Emission data collected during development of the 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.
    The HAP 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 HAP 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,

[[Page 33476]]

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 chronic 
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. Acute 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 (PM) 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 rule, though constituent parts of 
diesel PM are subject to the final rule. We are continuing to review 
this issue in the context of regulating stationary RICE.

D. 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. 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 final rule 
for stationary RICE.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Sources Are Subject to the Final Rule?

    The final 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 all have a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less. 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 
referenced the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA in 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 EPA acknowledges that the definition of major source in the 
final rule may be different from those found in other rules; however, 
this does not alter the definition of major source in other rules and, 
therefore, does not affect the Oil and Natural Gas Production 
Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) or any other rule 
applicability.
    While all stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than 500 brake 
HP located at major sources are subject to the final rule, there are 
distinct requirements for regulated stationary RICE depending on their 
design, use, and fuel. The standards in the final 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 site-rating of 500 brake HP or less are not addressed in the 
final rule. New or reconstructed stationary RICE which operate 
exclusively as emergency or limited use units are subject only to 
initial notification requirements. New or reconstructed stationary RICE 
which combust landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or 
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis are subject only to 
initial notification requirements and to monitoring, recording, and 
reporting of fuel usage requirements. 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), compression ignition (CI), stationary RICE 
that combust landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 
of the gross heat input on an annual basis, emergency, and limited use 
units) located at a major source of HAP emissions are not subject to 
any specific requirement under the final rule. You must determine your 
source's subcategory to determine which requirements apply to your 
source.
    The final rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at an area 
source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a 
contiguous site under common control that is not a major source.
    Finally, the final rule does not apply to stationary RICE test 
cells/stands since these facilities are covered by another NESHAP, 
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.

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

    The final rule covers stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is any 
RICE which uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into 
mechanical work and is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile 
RICE in that a stationary RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at 
40 CFR 1068.30, and is not used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle 
used solely for competition.
    We divided the stationary RICE source category into five 
subcategories: (1) Stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP 
or less, (2) emergency stationary RICE, (3) limited use stationary 
RICE, (4) stationary RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual 
basis, and (5) 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.
    The final rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/stands 
since these facilities are covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 
40 CFR part 63.
    The final rule also does not apply to stationary RICE with a site-
rating of 500

[[Page 33477]]

brake HP or less. In reviewing the population database to identify 
stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP 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 site-rating of 500 brake HP 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 feel it is appropriate to defer a decision on regulation of 
stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less until 
further information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed.
    We feel 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.

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 1a of subpart 
ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in Table 1b of 
subpart ZZZZ that apply; or (2) each new or reconstructed 2SLB 
stationary RICE, new or reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE, or new or 
reconstructed CI stationary RICE must comply with each emission 
limitation in Table 2a of subpart ZZZZ and operating limitation in 
Table 2b of subpart ZZZZ that apply. These tables can be found after 
the definitions in Sec.  63.6675 of subpart ZZZZ.
    Existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB stationary RICE, 
existing CI stationary RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively 
as emergency or limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust 
landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 
gross heat input on an annual basis 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 with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less, or 
stationary RICE that are being tested at stationary RICE test cells/
stands are not addressed in the final 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.
    If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI 
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions, 
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. The initial performance test must be 
conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI 
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions 
and you are using an oxidation catalyst, you must also install a 
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to continuously monitor 
the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial performance test, 
you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the 
catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI 
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions 
and you are not using an oxidation catalyst, you must also petition the 
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval or no 
operating limitations. You must also install a CPMS to continuously 
monitor the operating parameters (if any) approved by the 
Administrator. During the initial performance test, you must record the 
initial values of the approved operating parameters (if any).
    As an alternative, you may elect to 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. The initial performance test must 
be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. 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.
    If you own or operate 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions, you must conduct an 
initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03 to demonstrate that you are achieving 
the required formaldehyde percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent 
oxygen, dry basis. The initial performance test must be conducted at 
high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and you are using non-
selective catalytic reduction (NSCR), you must also install a CPMS to 
continuously monitor the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial 
performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure 
drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce formaldehyde

[[Page 33478]]

emissions and you are not using NSCR, you must also petition the 
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval or no 
operating limitations. You must also install a CPMS to continuously 
monitor the operating parameters (if any) approved by the 
Administrator. During the initial performance test, you must record the 
initial values of the approved operating parameters (if any).
    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, or ASTM D6348-03 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; or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; or ASTM 
D6348-03. The initial performance test must be conducted at high load 
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI 
stationary RICE complying with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
are using an oxidation catalyst or if you own or operate a 4SRB 
stationary RICE complying with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
are using NSCR, you must also install a CPMS to continuously monitor 
the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial performance test, 
you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the 
catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
are not an using oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must also petition the 
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no 
operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your petition for 
operating limitations, the operating limitations must also be 
established during the initial performance test.
    If you petition the Administrator for approval of operating 
limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) 
Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as 
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 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.
    For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying 
with the requirement to reduce CO emissions, unless you are using a 
CEMS, you must conduct semiannual performance tests for CO and oxygen 
using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required CO percent 
reduction is achieved. The performance tests must be conducted at high 
load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. 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.
    If you are using an oxidation catalyst, you must continuously 
monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the CO percent reduction requirement. The 4-
hour rolling average of the valid data must be within the operating 
limitation. You must also measure the pressure drop across the catalyst 
monthly. If you replace your oxidation catalyst, you must measure your 
pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you are not using an oxidation catalyst, you must continuously 
monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) approved by the 
Administrator to demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO percent 
reduction requirement. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data 
must be within the operating limitation.
    If you elect to demonstrate continuous compliance using a CEMS, 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

[[Page 33479]]

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.
    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 
catalyst inlet temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid 
data must be within the operating limitation. You must also measure the 
pressure drop across the catalyst monthly. If you replace your NSCR, 
you must measure the values of the pressure drop across the catalyst 
and measure the catalyst inlet temperature.
    For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE complying 
with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and not using 
NSCR, you must continuously monitor and record the operating parameters 
(if any) approved by the Administrator. The 4-hour rolling average of 
the valid data must be within the operating limitation.
    The 4SRB stationary RICE with a site-rating greater than or equal 
to 5,000 brake HP must also conduct semiannual performance tests to 
demonstrate that the percent reduction for formaldehyde emissions is 
achieved. The performance tests must be conducted at high load 
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. 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.
    If you are complying with the requirement to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the 
following requirements must be met.
    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.
    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 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.
    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. The performance tests must be conducted at high load conditions, 
defined as 100 percent 10 percent. 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.
    If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
are using an oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by continuously monitoring the catalyst inlet 
temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data must be 
within the operating limitation. You must also measure the pressure 
drop across the catalyst monthly. If you replace your oxidation 
catalyst or NSCR, you must measure the values of the pressure drop 
across the catalyst and measure the catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you 
are not using an oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by continuously monitoring and recording the 
values of any parameters which have been approved by the Administrator 
as operating limitations.

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

    If you own or operate a stationary RICE with a site-rating of more 
than 500 brake HP 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 existing 
4SRB stationary RICE and each new stationary RICE which operates 
exclusively as an emergency unit, limited use unit, or a stationary 
RICE which combusts digester gas or landfill gas equivalent to 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis.
    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 final 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 
off-site 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 final rule during the reporting period.

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

    Most of the rationale used to develop the proposed rule remains the 
same for the final rule. Therefore, the rationale previously provided 
in the proposed rule is not repeated in the final rule and the 
Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards section of the proposed 
rule should be referred to. Changes that have been made to the final 
rule are discussed in this section with rationale following in the 
Summary of Responses to Major Comments section.

A. Emission Limitations

    In the proposed NESHAP, new 2SLB stationary RICE were required to 
either reduce CO emissions by 60 percent or

[[Page 33480]]

more, or limit the concentration of formaldehyde to 17 parts per 
million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 15 percent oxygen. 
Existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE were required to either reduce 
formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more, or limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde to 350 parts per billion by volume dry 
basis (ppbvd) or less at 15 percent oxygen. The final rule requires new 
2SLB stationary RICE to either reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or 
more, or limit the concentration of formaldehyde to 12 ppmvd or less at 
15 percent oxygen. Existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE must either 
reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, or limit the 
concentration of formaldehyde to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent 
oxygen.
    In the proposed rule, sources were required to meet one of two 
emission limitations, depending on the type of control device being 
used. In the final rule, we have allowed sources the flexibility to 
meet either emission limitation, regardless of the type of emission 
control.

B. Operating Limitations

    We have made several revisions to the operating limitations that we 
proposed. The minimum value for the catalyst inlet temperature for new 
2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI stationary RICE complying with the 
requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst has 
decreased from 500[deg]F to 450[deg]F and the maximum value has 
increased from 1250[deg]F to 1350[deg]F. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we 
have removed the requirement to maintain the temperature rise across 
the catalyst. For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to 
limit the concentration of formaldehyde, we have removed the proposed 
requirement to maintain either an operating load or fuel flow rate 
equal to or greater than 95 percent of the value established during the 
initial performance test.

C. Testing and Monitoring

    In the final rule, we did not include EPA SW-846 Method 0011 or 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 430 as appropriate methods 
for measuring formaldehyde. We also specified that performance testing 
should be conducted at high load, defined as 100 10 
percent. In the final rule, we have included ASTM D6348-03 as an 
acceptable method for formaldehyde and moisture.
    The proposed rule required new 2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI 
stationary RICE with a brake HP greater than or equal to 5,000 
complying with the CO emission reduction requirement to install a CEMS 
to continuously monitor CO, whereas those with a brake HP less than 
5,000 demonstrated compliance with continuous parametric monitoring and 
quarterly CO performance testing. The final rule requires that new 
2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI engines use continuous parametric monitoring 
and semiannual CO performance testing to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. Sources may still elect to use a CO CEMS, but it is not 
required.
    In the final rule, we specified that the pressure drop across the 
catalyst must be measured monthly for sources complying with the 
requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst and 
for sources complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde 
emissions and using NSCR, instead of continuously monitored as 
specified in the proposed rule.

D. Other

    The proposed rule specified that stationary RICE that combust 
landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel did not have to meet the 
requirements of the rule, except for initial notification requirements. 
In the final rule, we redefined the subcategory as those engines with 
annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10 percent or more 
of the gross heat input on an annual basis. We have specified that new 
and reconstructed stationary RICE with annual landfill gas or digester 
gas consumption of 10 percent or more have to submit an initial 
notification and must also meet monitoring, recording, and reporting 
requirements associated with fuel usage. Existing stationary RICE with 
annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10 percent or more 
do not have to meet any requirements.
    The definition of emergency and limited use stationary RICE has 
been separated in the final rule. Limited use stationary RICE means any 
stationary RICE that operates less than 100 hours per year.
    The definition of emergency stationary RICE was written to indicate 
that loss of power that constitutes an emergency can include power 
supplied to portions of a facility, and that emergency operation is not 
limited to only times when the primary power source has been 
interrupted and is not limited to a specific number of hours. Routine 
testing and maintenance to ensure operational readiness has been 
included in the definition of emergency operation.
    We included a provision in the final rule allowing new or rebuilt 
engines to operate for up to 200 hours prior to installing the 
catalyst; this will not be considered a violation.
    In the final rule, we specified that an existing area source that 
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a 
major source must be in compliance within 3 years after becoming a 
major source. Potential to emit is defined in Sec.  63.6675 of the 
final stationary RICE NESHAP. The proposed rule stipulated that an 
existing area source that became a major source must be in compliance 
immediately after becoming a major source.

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    A more detailed summary of comments and our responses can be found 
in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, which is 
available from several sources (see ADDRESSES section).

A. Applicability

    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on what is 
considered an existing RICE unit for purposes of compliance. According 
to the commenter, using a date as a determination whether an engine is 
existing is confusing. The commenter stated that an engine takes on its 
identity when first assembled into an engine or when modified to be a 
different kind of engine, regardless of where that engine is ultimately 
installed or whether it is a spare on the shelf awaiting installation. 
Another commenter asked that EPA clarify that an existing RICE unit is 
any engine that was assembled as a final unit before December 19, 2002, 
regardless of whether it was or has been installed in a stationary 
location.
    One commenter stated that the criteria that makes a RICE unit 
affected by the proposed rule does not limit the rule's effects to only 
units that operate. The proposed factors that determine applicability 
are construction date, site-rating, and specific inherent designs of 
units. None of these criteria as applied in the proposal include a 
requirement that the engine be operational. It is not uncommon for an 
owner or operator to have idle engines. Some may be installed and not 
in use. Others may be stored for later use as replacements or spare 
engines. Importantly, idle units are distinct from emergency units 
because an idle unit is not in any use. The commenter expressed that an 
idle RICE unit should have no compliance obligations imposed by the 
final RICE rule.
    Response: We disagree with the first set of comments and feel that 
the date an engine was constructed is the date it

[[Page 33481]]

was installed at the operator site and not when it was assembled as a 
final unit at the manufacturer. Thus, any engine constructed (i.e., 
installed at the site of the operator) prior to December 19, 2002, is 
an existing engine for purposes of the final rule, while any engine 
constructed on or after that date is a new engine. For purposes of the 
final rule, the term ``on-site fabrication'' in the definition of 
construction in 40 CFR Sec.  63.2 shall refer to the final installation 
at the site of the final operator. This definition of construction is 
in line with how EPA generally defines construction, i.e., it is 
defined by when the unit is installed at the operator's location, 
rather than where it is first assembled.
    We feel it is appropriate to define ``on-site fabrication'' as the 
final site of installation because even after a unit has been 
manufactured, several components necessary in order to be able to 
operate the unit must be considered and added. The owner or operator 
cannot go directly from purchasing the unit from the manufacturer to 
operation. The owner or operator must typically have a building to 
house the unit in, construct a pad for the unit, run utilities, install 
fuel supply tanks or run the natural gas line, have the catalyst vendor 
install the pollution control equipment, and finally test the unit on-
site. For larger engines (e.g., 5,000 HP or greater), the installation 
process is even more pronounced. For these reasons, we find it 
appropriate that the date that final installation of the unit at the 
site of operation is commenced should be considered the construction 
date.
    Engines manufactured prior to December 19, 2002, but where 
installation was not commenced until after that date, are considered 
new engines and must comply with the requirements for new engines. We 
expect that these units will be able to comply with the requirements 
especially since the control equipment is typically installed on the 
engine at the site of operation and does not come with the engine 
purchased from the manufacturer. Finally, no problems are expected to 
occur with retrofit controls because the control technology is 
relatively easy to retrofit, especially in units that are being 
installed initially at a site. If owners or operators anticipate 
problems, they can elect to purchase a new engine meeting the 
requirements if it is installed after that date.
    With regard to the next comment, we disagree with the commenter's 
proposition that EPA needs to have a special provision to deal with 
engines that are installed but not in use. For new engines covered by 
the final rule, which will be the vast majority of the engines, the 
final rule does not apply until startup of the engine, which is when 
the engine begins operation. Therefore, new engines are not covered 
until they are operational, which already accomplishes the goal of the 
commenter. For existing engines, we feel that any engine that does not 
meet the definition of limited use engine, which includes any engine 
that operates less than 100 hours per year, should not be relieved of 
compliance obligations. We have written our definitions to distinguish 
emergency engines from limited use engines, which should reduce some 
confusion. An engine that does not operate at all is clearly a limited 
use engine, which by definition includes engines that operate 0 hours 
per year.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed that EPA should include an 
alternative applicability criteria based on 1 tpy actual formaldehyde 
emissions.
    Response: The basis for this comment is the Oil and Natural Gas 
Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage NESHAP (promulgated 
on June 17, 1999). In that rule, HAP emissions from process vents at 
glycol dehydration units that are located at major HAP sources and from 
process vents at certain area source glycol dehydration units are 
required to be controlled unless the actual flowrate of natural gas in 
the unit is less than 85,000 cubic meters per day (3.0 million standard 
cubic feet per day), on an annual average basis, or the benzene 
emissions from the unit are less than 0.9 megagrams per year (1 tpy). 
The 1 tpy emission threshold in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and 
Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT is equivalent to the smallest 
size glycol dehydration unit with control of HAP emissions and is, 
therefore, based on equivalence, not risk. The information in the 
docket does not support a decision to provide an alternative 
applicability cutoff in this case. Our decision to defer regulation of 
engines 500 HP or less was based on questions regarding how accurately 
the database reflected such engines. There were no such concerns raised 
based on whether an engine emitted formaldehyde above 1 tpy.
    Comment: Five commenters stated that the applicability limit for 
2SLB should be increased to 1100 HP to be consistent with the MACT 
floor. One commenter stated that the small engine size cutoff should be 
changed from 500 HP to 650 HP. The commenter said that while EPA 
appropriately reasoned that small engines should not be subject to the 
requirements of the rule, EPA provided no explicit rationale for the 
selection of 500 HP as the appropriate small engine size cutoff. 
Ranking all engines in EPA's database from smallest to largest, the 
first engine size that has controls is 650 HP. Thus, the appropriate 
small engine size cutoff supported by the record is less than 650 HP 
instead of less than or equal to 500 HP.
    Response: First, we need to clarify that engines 500 brake HP or 
less have not been exempted from regulation. Because we determined at 
the time of proposal that we did not have enough information to go 
forward with regulation of those engines at this time, we have deferred 
regulatory activity with regard to those engines. Pursuant to a consent 
decree signed on May 22, 2003, Sierra Club v. Whitman, Case Number 
1:01CV01537 (D.C.D.C.), a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 
regulation of these engines under CAA section 112 is scheduled for 
October 31, 2006, with a final rule by December 20, 2007. At this time, 
it would be inappropriate to speculate on what level of control would 
be promulgated for these engines.
    We are aware of stationary engines as small as 650 HP that are 
equipped with add-on HAP control devices. We feel our database 
represented the population of engines between 500 HP and 1100 HP 
reasonably well, so we do not feel it is appropriate to defer 
regulation of these engines to a later rule. Therefore, we do not feel 
it is appropriate to defer the regulation of engines up to 1100 HP for 
2SLB engines, or to include such engines in a separate subcategory. 
Although 650 HP is the smallest size unit that is known to have add-on 
HAP control, we feel it is appropriate to limit the deferral to engines 
500 HP or less because the control technology used for 650 HP units can 
be transferred to units at least as small as 500 HP in size. Oxidation 
catalyst technology is not limited to engines greater than 650 HP in 
size. In fact, information received during the public comment period 
supports our conclusion, where several engines rated at 400 HP were 
equipped with oxidation catalyst control. Our deferral of engine 
regulation was based on the type of engines used below 500 HP and 
whether our database was adequate for such engines. We feel our 
database for engines above 500 HP was adequate and that, in any case, 
the final rule for these engines is adequately justified in the record. 
The commenter does not adequately provide particular reasons to justify 
placing engines between 500 and 650 HP in a different subcategory from 
larger engines, and we

[[Page 33482]]

do not feel such subcategorization has been shown to be appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the rule should be more 
explicit as to whether the 500 HP capacity level for exception from the 
rule and 5,000 HP capacity level for enhanced monitoring applies to an 
individual engine or applies to the aggregate capacity of a group of 
engines.
    Response: We intended for the 500 HP capacity level to apply to an 
individual engine, not the aggregate capacity of a group of engines. 
Similarly, the 5,000 HP capacity level for enhanced monitoring was 
intended to apply to an individual engine. However, we have not 
included a CO CEMS requirement in the final rule. Sources are free to 
use CO CEMS to demonstrate compliance; however, CO CEMS are not 
required.
    Comment: One commenter contended that the MACT should consider 
exempting any RICE using landfill gas. A diesel engine can operate at a 
landfill in a dual fuel mode using fuel oil and landfill gas. Tests 
have shown that a catalytic converter cannot be used because of 
siloxanes in the landfill gas, even if the engine operates with more 
than half the energy being supplied by the liquid fuel.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we established a subcategory for 
landfill or digester gas fired units and defined the subcategory as 
those stationary RICE that combust digester gas or landfill gas as the 
primary fuel. In the proposed rule, these units did not have to meet 
any emission limitation requirements but were subject to the initial 
notification requirements. We agree with the commenters supporting the 
proposed approach to landfill and digester gas fired engines. We agree 
that neither control technology, fuel switching, or other practices 
would be an appropriate or workable strategy for reducing HAP from 
these engines. We agree with the commenter that problems will occur 
when using landfill gas because of siloxanes in the fuel, even if the 
engine operates with more than half the energy being supplied by the 
liquid fuel. Therefore, we contacted sanitation districts and catalyst 
vendors for information. Based on the information obtained, we feel 
that firing greater than 10 percent landfill gas or digester gas will 
cause fouling of the oxidation catalyst, rendering the control device 
inoperable within a short period of time. All the sources we contacted 
indicated that there would be problems associated with catalyst 
deactivation due to siloxanes present in landfill gas and digester gas. 
Information regarding landfill and digester gas is presented in a 
memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 
and A-95-35). While most units will operate using landfill or digester 
gas consumption above 50 percent of the time, there are times when such 
units may need to operate significantly below 50 percent landfill or 
digester gas consumption. We feel a cut-off level of 10 percent of 
gross heat input is an appropriate level for defining these units, 
because operation below that percentage raises significant questions 
regarding whether the unit is still appropriately considered to be 
operating as a landfill or digester gas burning unit, and would raise 
concerns regarding circumvention of the requirements for other new 
units. In the final rule, we have redefined the subcategory as those 
engines with annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis. New and 
reconstructed engines in this subcategory must only comply with limited 
requirements of the final rule. Engines with an annual landfill gas or 
digester gas consumption of less than 10 percent of the gross heat 
input on an annual basis are subject to applicable emission limitations 
of the final rule in addition to other requirements.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that a limited use category 
with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer hours 
of annual operation) should be included. One commenter suggested using 
a flat annual threshold level of 1,000 hours per year in lieu of 10 
percent usage. Another commenter recommended that the category include 
all units, not only peak shaving units. Several commenters argued that 
the 50 hours per year may not be sufficient. Some commenters noted that 
testing and maintenance should be included and not counted towards the 
50 hours per year. Two commenters recommended at least 250 hours per 
year. One commenter recommended a 52 hour limit for routine maintenance 
and testing, then have no limit for true emergency use. Similarly, 
other commenters expressed that since routine or unscheduled 
maintenance and testing could require unknown time to complete, there 
should be no time limits on the use of emergency stationary RICE. 
Several commenters suggested 100 hours per year for emergency 
generators. One commenter stated that the subcategory should be 
redefined to include RICE that operate less than 500 hours per year. 
Two commenters remarked that setting this exemption at 50 hours per 
year down from the 100 or 200 hours per year commonly seen in many 
State air pollution regulations, could have the net effect of 
increasing pollution by not allowing sufficient operating time for the 
engine to burn off hard deposits. Several commenters stated that the 
limited use definition for RICE should be separated from the emergency 
power definition since these are really different applications. Two 
commenters stated that the operation of emergency power units should 
not be limited to only those times when the primary power source has 
been interrupted, but rather not time-restricted at all, providing the 
primary design purpose of the unit is to provide emergency backup 
services, fire water, etc. One commenter asked that EPA clarify the 
definition of emergency/limited use engines as to whether loss power 
that constitutes an emergency is limited to power supplied to the 
facility as a whole or includes power supplied to portions of the 
facility. One commenter suggested that EPA revise the definition of 
emergency power RICE to clarify the intent of the rule as the current 
definition does not adequately encompass the wide array of emergency 
uses of engines. One commenter felt that the description of an 
emergency engine is too restrictive. The emergency use description 
should describe more power loss emergencies than those affecting an 
entire facility at once. The definition should also include uses for 
additional emergency types beyond power loss emergencies, e.g., fuel 
and raw material curtailments or fuel shortage emergencies applied by 
governments, utilities, or other suppliers may require the need to 
temporarily operate an engine, or some equipment may be operated to 
fight fires (firewater pumps). Neither of these examples represent loss 
of power, but are still unplanned events.
    One commenter stated that the definition should be clarified, or 
extended, to allow for operations in anticipation of an emergency 
situation. One commenter remarked that this class of RICE (engines 
having a capacity utilization of less than 10 percent) would operate 
mostly in the summer months when the public is more likely to be 
impacted by the emissions. Acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde all 
have documented short-term acute health effects. The EPA has failed to 
identify short-term health effects throughout any of the risk analysis 
proposals. The commenter asserted that any subcategorization of these 
engines without controls is not protective of public health.
    One commenter suggested eliminating from the definition the 
reference to ``when the primary power source has been rendered 
inoperable.'' There are emergency conditions where the

[[Page 33483]]

primary power source is still operable, but the emergency condition 
necessitates the startup of engines (e.g., firewater pumps during a 
unit fire, instrument air back-up engines). Another option would be to 
add the words ``or is insufficient for an emergency situation'' after 
the primary power source comment.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed rule proposed a subcategory 
for limited use stationary RICE and defined them as operating 50 hours 
or less per year. Comments received indicated that the proposed 50 
hours per year for limited use units was not sufficient and that many 
limited use engines would exceed the 50 hours per year just by routine 
testing and maintenance of the engine for readiness purposes. For this 
reason, we feel that few owners and operators would find this allowance 
useful and would not serve a purpose except to cover periods of testing 
and maintenance. We have, therefore, found it appropriate to increase 
the number of hours for limited use operation. We have specified in the 
final rule that limited use stationary RICE are stationary RICE that 
operate less than 100 hours per year. For limited use units, operation 
during routine testing and maintenance is counted towards the 100 hours 
per year.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, we solicited comments on 
creating a subcategory of limited use engines with capacity utilization 
of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer hours of annual operation). These 
units would have included engines used for electric power peak shaving. 
As a result of soliciting comments, we received several comments 
regarding the possibility of establishing a limited use subcategory 
with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less; some for and some 
against. We considered all comments received and have decided not to 
include a subcategory of limited use stationary RICE with a capacity 
utilization of 10 percent or less in the final rule. Limited use units 
operating 876 hours per year are similar to other sources equipped with 
add-on oxidation catalyst control and their operation only during peak 
periods does not preclude them from being equipped with add-on 
oxidation catalyst control. Those commenters supporting a longer time 
period for the limited use engines did not provide persuasive arguments 
for such a subcategory. The commenters have not provided significant 
data indicating that engines operating up to 10 percent of the time (or 
longer, as some commenters suggested) are unable to take steps similar 
to other RICE to reduce HAP. On the contrary, as stated previously, 
such engines are similar to other stationary RICE that can be and have 
been equipped with add-on oxidation catalyst control, and their 
operation only during peak periods does not preclude them from being 
equipped with workable add-on control or from using other methods of 
emission control to reduce HAP. The 10 percent time limit would allow 
over a month of usage per year, which we feel is substantial enough 
both to be of concern environmentally and to take advantage of emission 
control strategies. Significant operation of these engines is expected 
and should be accounted for in the final rule.
    By contrast, a limited use exemption covering only 100 hours per 
year of use is justified because usage in these cases in clearly 
exceptional and these engines would have the technical and usage 
concerns similar to emergency engines discussed in the proposed rule. 
These engines are categorically different from other engines in that 
they are only used in truly exceptional situations. For these reasons, 
we have not established a limited use subcategory of units operating 
876 hours per year in the final rule, but have included a limited use 
subcategory allowing engines to operate up to 100 hours per year.
    We agree with the comment that the emergency and limited use 
stationary RICE definition should be separated. We have established 
separate definitions for emergency stationary RICE and limited use 
stationary RICE in the final rule.
    In addition, in the final rule, the definition of emergency engine 
was written to indicate that loss of power that constitutes an 
emergency can include power supplied to portions of a facility. We 
intended that the definition of emergency engine include operation 
during emergency situations, including times when the primary power 
source has been interrupted as well as other situations such as pumping 
water in the case of fire or flood, which was given as an example of 
emergency operation in the definition in the proposed rule. The 
definition has been clarified to clearly indicate that emergency 
operation is not limited to only times when the primary power source 
has been interrupted. We contacted the commenter for more information 
about the types of curtailments with which they were concerned. The 
commenter provided only one example, which was shutdown of offshore 
wells during a hurricane. We feel that the definition of emergency 
stationary combustion engine is sufficient to cover this particular 
scenario and it is not necessary to include more examples of emergency 
operation. It would be nearly impossible to provide examples of every 
potential type of emergency situation. The operation of emergency 
engines is not limited to a specific number of hours. Also, routine 
testing and maintenance to ensure operational readiness have been 
included in the definition of emergency engine. However, the routine 
testing and maintenance must be within limits recommended by the engine 
manufacturer or other entity such as an insurance company. Emergency 
stationary RICE may also operate an additional 50 hours per year in 
non-emergency situations. As stated previously, routine testing and 
maintenance have been included in the definition of emergency 
stationary RICE and, therefore, are not counted towards the 50 hours 
per year. We do not agree that operation in anticipation of an 
emergency situation should be included in the definition of emergency 
engine and have not made this change.
    Comment: One commenter requested a subcategory for new and 
reconstructed stationary CI RICE located in the State of Alaska that 
exempts the engines from the control requirements of this proposed 
rule. The commenter stated that EPA has overlooked the fact that low 
sulfur fuels (less than 500 ppm (0.05 weight percent)) are necessary 
for CO oxidation catalysts to operate properly and that these fuels are 
not available in several areas of the United States including the State 
of Alaska. Sulfur can quickly degrade oxidation catalyst performance 
for controlling CO (or formaldehyde) emissions by poisoning the 
precious metal substrate of the catalyst. In one study it was found 
that increasing the diesel sulfur content from 3 ppm to 350 ppm by 
weight resulted in a three-fold increase in catalyst-out PM emissions. 
In the same study, the performance of the diesel oxidation catalyst for 
controlling CO emissions from the higher sulfur fuel degraded by an 
average of 10 percent after the short-term (250-hour) aging tests. In 
Alaska meeting the proposed MACT floor (oxidation catalyst) for new CI 
RICE sources will be problematic because of the non-availability of low 
sulfur diesel fuels (300 to 500 ppm sulfur content by weight). The 
permitted diesel fuel sulfur content, by weight, for most permitted 
stationary CI sources is between 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent (1,000 ppm 
to 5,000 ppm by weight). The Trans Alaska Pipeline System facilities 
operated by the commenter have permitted sulfur fuel content limits 
between 0.24 percent to 0.5 percent. The lowest fuel sulfur diesel that 
is available in the State of Alaska is an arctic grade fuel that has a 
sulfur content of

[[Page 33484]]

approximately 0.1 percent. Petroleum refineries in the State are not 
required to produce lower sulfur fuels because Alaska is exempted (see 
40 CFR part 69 of 69 FR 34126) from EPA's low sulfur highway diesel 
fuel standards.
    Response: We feel it is unnecessary to establish a subcategory for 
new and reconstructed CI RICE located in the State of Alaska. 
Information received from the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (DEC) indicated that there is a refinery in Alaska that 
can produce low sulfur fuel (300 to 500 ppm sulfur content by weight). 
The refinery can make low sulfur diesel that meets arctic pour point 
specifications. The information from the Alaska DEC also indicated that 
low sulfur fuel is generally available where there are roads in 
Anchorage, but not generally available on other parts of the road 
system, such as Fairbanks. Some remote villages do have low sulfur 
fuel. We expect availability to grow further as EPA's final rule 
implementing new sulfur limits for highway fuel, including fuel in 
Alaska (68 FR 5002, January 18, 2001), is implemented beginning in 
2006. The Alaska DEC said that Alaska has 200 small villages that are 
remote, and it may be difficult for these small villages to always have 
low sulfur fuel available. These villages tend to employ RICE to 
generate electricity and have between two to four stationary RICE in 
their power plants. These engines range from 6 to 4000 kilowatt (kW), 
with an average of 300 kW. The Alaska DEC said that these engines are 
below the threshold for major sources, and that is also confirmed by 
HAP emission calculations. Since these villages would not be major HAP 
sites they would not be affected by the final rule. The non-
availability of low sulfur fuel at these remote villages would 
therefore not be an issue since these villages would not be subject to 
the rule since they are located at non-major HAP sites. Finally, we 
have received information from catalyst vendors indicating that there 
are sulfur tolerant catalysts that have been commercialized and are 
suitable for use with fuels having a sulfur content between 3,000 and 
5,000 ppm sulfur by weight. Sources that may not be able to obtain low 
sulfur fuel could use such catalysts to comply with the requirements of 
the final rule. For these reasons, we do not feel it is necessary to 
establish a separate subcategory for stationary RICE located in Alaska.

B. Definitions

    Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA should revise the 
definition of rich burn engine to eliminate engines that have been 
converted to operate as lean burn engines and to address older engines 
(e.g., horizontal), where there is no recommended air/fuel ratio. One 
commenter recommended that EPA adopt the following definition into the 
final rule: ``Rich burn engine means four-stroke spark ignited engine 
where the manufacturer's recommended air/fuel ratio divided by the 
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio at full conditions is <=1.1. Engines 
originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but modified prior to 
August 16, 2004 with passive emission control technology for nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) (such as pre-combustion chambers) shall be 
considered lean burn engines. Horizontal engines shall be considered 
lean burn engines. Also, older engines where there are no 
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be 
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the 
exhaust at full load conditions is <=2 percent.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter that it is necessary to 
address engines that have been converted from 4SRB engines to 4SLB 
engines and to also address older engines such as horizontal engines. 
We have, therefore, adjusted the definition of rich burn engine and 
have written the rich burn definition in the final rule as follows: 
``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 at full load conditions is less than or 
equal to 1.1. Engines originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but 
modified prior to December 19, 2002 with passive emission control 
technology for NOX (such as pre-combustion chambers) will be 
considered lean burn engines. Also, existing engines where there are no 
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be 
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the 
exhaust at full load conditions is less than or equal to 2 percent.'' 
In addition, to avoid conflict with the definition of lean burn engine, 
the lean burn engine definition has also been adjusted and reads as 
follows in the final rule: ``Lean burn engine means any two-stroke or 
four-stroke spark ignited engine that does not meet the definition of a 
rich burn engine.''
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the definition of a 
reconstructed source should be modified to exclude any cost incurred 
with the installation of a control device required by State and local 
emission standards. The addition of diesel particulate filters (DPF) 
could exceed the reconstruction cost threshold (50 percent of fixed 
capital cost to construct a comparable new source).
    Response: Based on the information we have available on costs of 
DPF systems and costs of engines, we feel that the addition of DPF 
would not exceed the reconstruction threshold of 50 percent of the 
capital cost of a new engine. Information received from CARB indicates 
that the total cost of a DPF including equipment and installation is 
around $38/HP. Engine costs estimated by CARB are $93/HP for a new 
engine. Comparing the cost of a DPF system to the cost of a new engine 
shows that the addition of such a filter system would be less than 50 
percent. Engine cost information available to us obtained from other 
sources indicate that engine costs are between $150-$270/HP. Using 
these engine costs, the addition of a DPF system would be an even lower 
percentage of the cost of a new engine. Engine costs are presented in a 
memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 
and A-95-35). We have, therefore, concluded that based on both 
information received from CARB and information we already have, the 
addition of a DPF would be less than 50 percent of the cost of a new 
engine.
    In any case, our policy regarding the inclusion of air pollution 
control equipment in determining reconstruction is that the costs 
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control 
equipment are included in the fixed capital cost to the extent that the 
equipment is required as part of the manufacturing or operating 
process. Therefore, it is our policy not to include the fixed capital 
cost of air pollution control equipment that is not part of the 
operating process. Since DPF is not required in order to operate an 
engine, the cost for purchase and installation of DPF would not be 
included in determining whether a source is reconstructed. The 
commenter does not explain why we should deviate from the General 
Provisions based on compliance with State or local regulations. A 
source that is spending more than 50 percent of the capital cost needed 
for a new engine to meet the requirements should be in a position to 
make appropriate changes in its source at that time to meet the 
standards promulgated today. Moreover, the source may be able to comply 
with both requirements at the same time and may be able to meet the 
requirements using integrated controls (if not the same controls) that 
would be best implemented at the same time.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA write the 
definitions of affected source, existing stationary

[[Page 33485]]

RICE, new stationary RICE, and reconstructed stationary RICE such that 
they represent the ``collection'' of each type of source at a site, 
consistent with General Provisions Sec.  63.2.
    Response: Although Sec.  63.2 of the General Provisions provides 
that we will generally adopt a broad definition of affected source, 
which includes all emission units within each subcategory which are 
located within the same contiguous area, this section also provides 
that we may adopt a narrower definition of affected source in instances 
where we determine that the broader definition would ``create 
significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems'' and 
``the different definition would resolve those problems.'' This is such 
an instance. There are several subcategories of stationary RICE, and a 
site could have engines from multiple subcategories, each having 
different compliance requirements. Use of the broader definition of 
affected source specified by the General Provisions would require very 
complex aggregate compliance determinations. We feel such complicated 
compliance determinations to be impractical, and, therefore, have 
decided to adopt a definition which establishes each individual RICE as 
the affected source.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the preamble should clarify 
that the definition of major source in the RICE MACT does not alter the 
definition of a major source in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63 (Oil and 
Natural Gas Production Facilities) and, therefore, does not affect 
subpart HH applicability.
    Response: We recognize the commenter's concern regarding the 
definition of major source in the RICE NESHAP and its difference from 
the definition of major source in 40 CFR subpart HH. We have, 
therefore, clarified in the preamble to the final rule that the 
definition of major source in the RICE NESHAP does not alter the 
definition of major source in subpart HH (or any other subpart) and, 
therefore, does not affect subpart HH applicability.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the definitions from 40 CFR 
subpart HH and 40 CFR subpart HHH for glycol dehydration unit, storage 
vessel with the potential for flash emissions, and production well 
should be included.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the definitions should 
be included in the RICE NESHAP. The definitions from 40 CFR subpart HH 
and 40 CFR subpart HHH for glycol dehydration unit, storage vessel with 
the potential for flash emissions, and production well have been added 
to the final rule.

C. Dates

    Comment: A few commenters remarked that EPA should provide 1 year 
for initial notification as in the glycol dehydration MACT.
    Response: An initial notification is not a time consuming activity, 
and we do not feel that 1 year is necessary to submit an initial 
notification.
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed the view that immediate 
compliance for new and reconstructed engines is unreasonable. The 
commenters felt that 1 year compliance time frame is more reasonable.
    Response: We feel that immediate compliance is appropriate for new 
or reconstructed engines and is consistent with the General Provisions 
of part 63. See also CAA section 112(i)(1). The requirements of CAA 
section 112 contemplate that sources will be aware of their 
requirements at the time of proposal and, excluding requirements that 
are made more stringent between proposal and promulgation, new or 
reconstructed sources should be prepared to meet such requirements 
immediately, at the time of the final rule. Sources are required to 
install the proper equipment and meet the applicable emission 
limitations on startup; however, we allow sources 180 days to 
demonstrate compliance. In addition, because two of our emission 
requirements have been made more stringent since proposal, sources 
subject to those requirements that commence operation in between 
proposal and the final rule may show compliance with the proposed 
requirements for the first 3 years of the program.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that for area sources becoming 
major sources, the requirement to be in compliance at the time of the 
switch is unreasonable. Two commenters suggested allowing 1 year for 
the unit to come into compliance. One commenter suggested that all area 
sources that become major should be allowed 3 years to achieve 
compliance or change the definition of a new stationary RICE to ``A 
stationary RICE is new if you commenced construction of the stationary 
RICE after December 19, 2002, and you meet the applicability criteria 
for the subpart at the time you commenced construction.'' Five 
commenters suggested 3 years.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that it is appropriate to 
allow existing area sources that become major sources 3 years to comply 
with the final rule. This has been specified in the final rule in Sec.  
63.6595(b)(2). However, we do not agree with the commenters that 
immediate compliance is unreasonable for new and reconstructed RICE 
located at area sources that are constructed or reconstructed at the 
same time the area source becomes a major source. These sources are 
aware in advance of their change in status from area source to major 
source, and therefore, should have sufficient time to plan for 
immediate compliance with the final rule. This has been specified in 
the final rule in Sec.  63.6595(b)(1). A period of 180 days is allowed 
to demonstrate compliance.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA provide 1 year to 
conduct the initial performance test, rather than 180 days provided by 
the General Provisions. One commenter indicated that seasonal 
operations, such as storage facilities or compressor stations used in 
peak demand only, may not be operational during the 180 days provided 
to conduct the performance test. All existing 4SRB engines must conduct 
formaldehyde testing as a part of the initial performance test. It may 
be difficult to secure appropriate testing firms within the 180 days 
provided, especially since many may depend on Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) testing.
    Response: We feel the time we have allowed sources to conduct the 
initial performance test is appropriate. Existing sources that must 
meet the requirements of the final rule have 3 years and 180 days to 
conduct the initial performance test and to demonstrate compliance. 
Therefore, existing 4SRB engines that must meet the formaldehyde 
emission limitations have sufficient of time to secure an appropriate 
testing firm. In addition, the final rule does not only specify that 
FTIR can be used for formaldehyde testing, but that also Method 323 can 
be used. This means it may not be necessary to secure testing firms 
specializing in FTIR measurements, and should increase the number of 
available testing firms. New sources that must meet the requirements of 
the final rule are aware in advance that their source will be covered 
by the final rule. We feel that 180 days is sufficient time to secure 
appropriate testing firms and to conduct the initial performance test 
and feel that 1 year to conduct the initial performance test is not 
necessary. Regarding the comment concerning seasonal operations, new 
sources do not have to test until the unit is operating, so seasonal 
operation should not be a concern for new units. Also, for existing 
sources, we feel that seasonal operation should not be a problem since 
the unit has 3 years and

[[Page 33486]]

180 days to conduct the initial performance test, and surely the unit 
would be operational within that timeframe. Finally, the 180 day time 
period for new sources is consistent with the General Provisions of 
part 63.

D. Emission Limitations

    Comment: One commenter asserted that the emission limitations are 
too stringent. The commenter stated that the proposed emission 
standards were based on information from only five engines and does not 
believe that the proposed percent reductions and emission standards 
reflect the actual performance possible from the wide array of engine 
designs and sizes in the marketplace. For example, the formaldehyde 
reduction standard for rich burn engines in the proposed rule is set at 
75 percent. However, the data in the docket show that results from 
eight test runs on two rich burn engines varied from 73 to 80 percent. 
If the reduction efficiency on two test engines under highly-controlled 
conditions can vary by such a significant amount (and to a level that 
does not meet the proposed standard), then it is highly likely that 
rich burn engines of different size and using different NSCR technology 
also would not be able to meet the standard. The EPA must consider the 
significant variability in RICE and adjust all final emissions 
standards and reduction percentages accordingly. The commenter 
recommended that the formaldehyde emission limits be revised upward by 
10 percent to allow for variability in the RICE and aftertreatment 
system populations.
    Three commenters asserted that the MACT floor for existing 4SRB is 
not representative of the average emission limit achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources.
    One commenter stated that the emission standard for existing 4SRB 
engines should be reassessed to be consistent with the requirements of 
CAA section 112(d). The commenter remarked that the Agency used the 
incorrect approach to set the emission limit for existing 4SRB engines, 
which logically should be lower percent removal than for new 4SRB 
engines. It was the commenter's opinion that the Agency should revisit 
the analysis and establish an emission limit for 4SRB engines more 
consistent with the required floor-setting methodology.
    Five commenters expressed that the same emission limitation for 
existing and new 4SRB is unrealistic. One commenter recommended 
considering 10 percent less restrictive emission reduction requirement 
for existing units. Another commenter indicated that practically 
speaking, retrofitting existing equipment rarely achieves the optimum 
design available in new equipment.
    One commenter contended that 350 ppbvd is too low. The chosen limit 
was achieved by the best performing engine during Colorado State 
University (CSU) testing while for other types of engines the highest 
emissions from the performance range had been chosen as the emissions 
limit.
    Response: We disagree with comments that the MACT floor level 
proposed for existing 4SRB engines is inconsistent with the statute or 
not representative of the average emission level achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources. The commenters do not 
dispute the accuracy of the data used or the representativeness of the 
engines tested. The commenters instead believe the manner in which we 
used the data is not reflective of the average of the best performing 
12 percent of existing sources. To clarify our approach in the 
proposal, we found the lowest percent reduction value for each of the 
two sources tested, which accounts for variability in results for each 
source. However, as we found that 27 percent of the engines in the 
subcategory use NSCR, we felt that it was appropriate to use only the 
higher of the two values to determine the MACT floor for existing 
engines. In essence, this treated the top performer as a surrogate for 
the top half of the population using NSCR or the top 13.5 percent of 
the population. This is more closely analogous to the level of the top 
12 percent of sources than is a straight average of the two sources.
    However, in reviewing our method in response to these comments, we 
feel that it would be more appropriate to include in the analysis the 
data from the lower performing of the two engines tested, thus using 
more than a single data point in determining the MACT floor for 
existing engines. Because the test calculation for the MACT floor for 
existing engines is supposed to be based on the average of the top 
performing 12 percent of sources, it would be better to rely on a 
formula that does not rely solely on the highest performer. Also, it 
would not be appropriate to use a straight average between the two 
sources, because that would not be a fair approximation of the average 
of the top 12 percent of sources. Instead, it would approximate the 
average of the best performing 27 percent of sources. Therefore, we 
feel a reasonable approach is to discount the lower performing source 
by 12/27, thus reducing the influence of that data point by the ratio 
of controlled sources (27 percent of the population) compared to the 
statutory level (12 percent). This leads to a weighted average where 
the data point for the lower performer will be worth 22 percent (50 
percent) (12/27) and the level for the higher performer will be worth 
78 percent.
    To be consistent with the approach followed for other engine types, 
i.e., establish emission limitations based on test results conducted at 
high loads, we found it appropriate to exclude runs conducted at low 
loads in determining the lower and higher performer. This leads to a 
final MACT floor of 76 percent control efficiency or 350 ppbvd.\1\ 
Though the formaldehyde reduction number differs slightly from the 
proposed level, it is very close. The proposed level for the 
alternative formaldehyde concentration emission limitation remains the 
same even after following the revised approach. This should not be 
particularly surprising. Though the emission values of the two engines 
were not identical, they were very close and the final values for 
either engines generally round to the same value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The calculation of percentage reduction is as follows: 
(lowest tested percentage reduction of the lower performing engine) 
* (.222) + (lowest tested percentage reduction of the higher 
performing engine) * (.777) = (75.5) (.222) + (76.2) (.778) = 76.0. 
The calculation of parts per billion is as follows: (highest tested 
parts per billion of the lower performing engine) * (.222) + 
(highest tested parts per billion of the higher performing engine) * 
(.778) = (355) (.222) + (348) (.778) = 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new 4SRB engines, we proposed a formaldehyde reduction 
requirement of 75 percent and an alternative formaldehyde concentration 
emission limitation of 350 ppbvd. In reviewing the 4SRB emissions data 
we used to set the standard, we observed that the minimum percent 
efficiency achieved by the best performing engine was actually 76.2 
percent formaldehyde reduction. Therefore, we acknowledge that the 
proposed formaldehyde reduction should have been set at 76 percent 
reduction for new 4SRB engines and not 75 percent formaldehyde 
reduction and have written this in the final rule.
    The commenters also seem to argue that the MACT floor levels for 
existing engines must be less stringent than those for new engines. 
While the criteria for the MACT floor for new engines is in some cases 
more stringent than for existing engines, it is not impossible, or even 
illogical, for the result to be the same, or at least very close. In 
this case, the best performing 12 percent of engines use the same 
control technology, and the emission values, as well as the emission 
reduction values, appear to be very close for these

[[Page 33487]]

engines. Therefore, it is not surprising that the levels for the MACT 
floor for new and existing engines should be close. Moreover, we were 
using a very small data set in setting the final emission limits, thus 
limiting the variation in the data used. This led to a proposed level 
that used the same calculations for determining the MACT floor for both 
existing and new engines. We have changed the manner of calculating the 
MACT floor for existing engines for the final rule, but the result is 
still very close to that for new engines. Again, this is because the 
results for both engines were very close.
    Regarding the comment referring to the use of the average of the 
best five performing sources, this is only permitted when the category 
or subcategory has less than 30 sources. This is not the case with this 
subcategory. Given that we had usable data from only two sources, it is 
not clear that averaging the two sources would be appropriate to meet 
that requirement.
    Regarding the comment that retrofitting existing equipment rarely 
achieved the optimum design available in new equipment, the commenters 
provide no data showing that emissions reductions from retrofitting 
existing engines would be reduced compared to those from new engines.
    Regardless, the MACT floor for new engines is not based on the 
optimum possible design for a new engine, but on the best level of 
control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, 
whether retrofitted or not. Similarly, the MACT floor for existing 
engines is based on a specific formula. We based the MACT floor for new 
engines on the information available to us from existing engines. While 
individual existing sources may have some design constraints in 
installing the emission control technology, there is no evidence that 
the MACT floor is not achievable. The suggestion that is provided, a 10 
percent discount for existing units, without a basis in the existing 
data, does not appear consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
112(d).
    Comment: One commenter indicated that there is considerable doubt 
about the ability of an oxidation catalyst to reduce the formaldehyde 
concentration over long periods of time. A technical paper presented at 
the 2002 Gas Machinery Conference found that the catalyst efficiency 
for the Waukesha GL engine for formaldehyde reduces from 100 percent to 
67 percent in only 150 hours of operation.
    Response: We accounted for catalyst aging in setting the standard. 
In fact, the oxidation catalysts used during EPA's testing at CSU were 
sufficiently aged prior to testing. The 2SLB engine catalyst was aged 
for 236 hours, the 4SLB engine catalyst was aged for 140 hours, and the 
CI engine catalyst was aged for 100 hours. Industry representatives 
were in agreement that the catalysts were adequately aged. The industry 
testing we used in setting the standard for 4SRB engines was based on 
testing of two 4SRB engines equipped with NSCR. The NSCR catalysts used 
were appropriately aged by more than 2 years prior to testing. 
Information regarding catalyst aging at CSU is presented in a 
memorandum included in the rule docket (OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35).
    Comment: One commenter said that the 14 ppmvd formaldehyde limit 
for new 4SLB engines is not achievable and should be increased. The 
commenter stated that EPA based its proposed limit on a small number of 
tests on a newly rebuilt engine over a test period of 8.8 hours. Only a 
single 4SLB was tested, and it may not be representative of engines of 
the same type from different manufacturers. The period of catalyst 
aging was very short compared to typical catalyst maintenance 
intervals, so results may not be representative of catalyst performance 
during normal catalyst maintenance intervals; and the tests were 
performed within only a single catalyst that may not be representative 
of catalysts from different manufacturers. Clearly, all 4SLB stationary 
RICE cannot meet the emissions limits set by EPA in the proposed rule, 
particularly over normal catalyst life intervals of 2 to 3 years. The 
EPA should incorporate other available test data in the final emission 
limits for 4SLB engines to accommodate the degradation in catalyst 
performance over the useful lifetime of the catalyst.
    Response: The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent 
that the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source. The alternative formaldehyde standard for 
4SLB engines is based on the minimum level of control achieved by the 
best controlled source. This approach takes into account variability of 
the best performing engine. Furthermore, EPA and industry 
representatives were in agreement that the engines and catalysts tested 
at CSU were representative of engine and catalyst operation across the 
U.S. We discussed catalyst aging during the EPA testing at CSU in 
response to the previous comment. We feel the catalyst was sufficiently 
aged prior to testing at CSU. Industry representatives also agreed that 
the catalyst was adequately aged. For the reasons provided, we feel 
that the 14 ppmvd formaldehyde limit that was proposed for 4SLB is 
appropriate and achievable. We recognize that the alternative 
formaldehyde emission limitation is based on a limited amount of data. 
However, we feel that sources with a well designed oxidation catalyst 
that operate the equipment properly will be able to meet the 
formaldehyde concentration.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed that 93 percent CO reduction 
is not achievable. During the public hearing a commenter stated that a 
specific CO limit is more reasonable. Two commenters suggested reducing 
the limit to require 60 percent CO reduction. One commenter recommended 
that the value be set between 70 and 80 percent comparable to 2SLB and 
CI engines. Another commenter stated that EPA has not demonstrated that 
the catalyst will perform at this level on a continuous basis 
considering fuel and lubrication poisoning. Finally, one commenter said 
that American Petroleum Institute/Gas Research Institute testing 
indicated a 53 to 63 percent performance. The commenter also said that 
the percent reduction likely will not be achievable with aged 
catalysts.
    One commenter had several concerns with establishing the CO 
reduction limit based on the testing conducted at CSU. The concerns 
stated by the commenter include: Only a single engine for each type was 
tested and it may not be representative of engines of the same type 
from different manufacturers; the variables consisted only of 
parameters affecting HAP formation in the engine and not necessarily 
those affecting CO reduction across the catalyst; the engines were 
rebuilt prior to testing to represent new engines and may not represent 
engine condition between routine maintenance intervals; the period of 
catalyst aging was very short compared to typical catalyst maintenance 
intervals, hence results may not be representative of catalyst 
performance during normal catalyst maintenance intervals; and the tests 
were performed with only a single catalyst that may not be 
representative of catalysts from different manufacturers.
    One commenter stated catalyst performance degrades over time due to 
gas species and concentrations, thermal cycling, chemical poisoning 
and/or physical blocking caused by sulfur, lubricants, silica, etc. 
that enter the exhaust from the fuel, crankcase and/or combustion air. 
Catalyst life is the dominant factor in the cost of the

[[Page 33488]]

control technology, since the cost of replacement catalyst modules is 
large relative to other operating and maintenance costs. Typically, 
oxidation catalysts undergo two stages of deactivation: A period of 
rapid deactivation as the catalyst adjusts to the thermal and gas 
conditions, typically over a period on the order of 100 hours; followed 
by a period of slow deactivation that occurs over thousands or tens of 
thousands of hours. The duration of the CSU tests was clearly 
insufficient to address long-term catalyst deactivation, and perhaps 
not even fully accounting for initial deactivation. For example, CO 
reduction efficiency during the 140 hours of catalyst aging during the 
4SLB engine test at CSU was still declining at the end of that period, 
suggesting that further deactivation would likely occur over time.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that 93 percent reduction 
for CO is not achievable for 4SLB engines. The 93 percent CO reduction 
emission limitation is based on the minimum level of control achieved 
by the 4SLB engine tested at CSU. We chose the minimum efficiency 
achieved as this value takes into account variability in performance of 
the engine and engines operating across the U.S., therefore, we feel we 
have appropriately set the emission limitation for 4SLB engines.
    As rationale for setting the limit at 60 percent, the commenter 
cited a recent field test of a 4SLB engine where the measured CO 
reduction efficiency was 53 to 60 percent. However, the commenter did 
not provide any indication of what reduction efficiency the catalyst 
was designed for, or whether the catalyst had been properly maintained 
and cleaned. The commenter also did not identify the operating 
conditions under which the test was conducted, for example if the test 
was conducted during high load operation. Moreover, given the results 
of the CSU testing, and the standard-setting requirements for new 
engines under CAA section 112(d), it is not clear that the results in 
that test would be relevant for standard-setting for new engines.
    Regarding the concerns expressed by one commenter, EPA and industry 
representatives were in agreement that the engines and catalysts tested 
at CSU were representative of engine and catalyst operation across the 
U.S. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the testing 
conducted at CSU to obtain HAP and CO emissions data was a joint EPA-
industry effort. Prior to 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. Equipment manufacturers, catalyst vendors, 
owners and operators, and EPA agreed that the tests conducted at CSU 
were representative of typical engine operating conditions in the field 
for varied engine and catalyst manufacturers. It is believed that the 
variations in the operating parameters affect both HAP formation and CO 
reduction across the catalyst. For additional information regarding the 
CSU testing, please refer to the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-
0059 and A-95-35).
    We disagree that the catalyst will not perform at this level on a 
continuous basis or when it is aged. The CSU testing was funded by 
several different agencies, and several stakeholders participated in 
the planning, preparation and execution of the tests. All stakeholders 
agreed that the catalyst was properly aged before testing was initiated 
on each engine. We discussed catalyst aging during the testing at CSU 
in response to a previous comment. We feel the catalyst was 
sufficiently aged prior to testing at CSU. It should be noted, as 
discussed below, that sources may meet the formaldehyde concentration 
standard to meet the requirements as well as the 93 percent CO 
reduction requirement.
    In response to the comment regarding long-term catalyst 
deactivation, we reemphasize that industry representatives that were 
involved in the testing at CSU agreed that the testing would be 
representative for catalyst performance, both short-term and long-term. 
We agree with the commenter that there may be two stages of 
deactivation. The first stage of deactivation may occur during the 
first 100 hours, or might occur as early as after 20 hours of 
operation. A second stage of deactivation may occur over a period of 
more than a 1,000 hours of operation. However, information received 
from catalyst vendors indicate that they are able to design the 
catalyst to achieve the guaranteed percent reduction at the end of the 
catalyst life (warranty period). The percent reduction may decline 
slightly in the beginning but the catalyst can be designed to stabilize 
at the desired percent reduction. Catalysts that can achieve emissions 
reductions of 93 percent or more for the life of the catalyst are 
within the technological limits of this technology. For these reasons, 
we feel the CO percent reduction requirement of the final rule is 
appropriate and justified.
    Comment: Multiple commenters asked that EPA allow sources to choose 
either percent reduction or final concentration to comply with 
irrespective of the control technique employed.
    Response: We agree with the commenters, and we feel it is 
appropriate to allow sources to choose either the percent reduction or 
formaldehyde concentration outlet limit to demonstrate compliance 
irrespective of the control technique employed. We have specified this 
flexibility in the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed rule does not 
recognize DPF as a significantly more effective control device for 
reducing diesel exhaust emissions compared to diesel oxidation 
catalysts. One commenter asked that the final rule require the use of 
particulate traps on diesel engines. Another commenter expressed 
concern with the interaction of control equipment with diesel 
particulate traps. One commenter indicated that DPF can reduce diesel 
PM by at least 80 percent. According to the commenter, these traps can 
reduce CO by at least 90 percent.
    Response: The commenters indicate that DPF are effective at 
reducing diesel exhaust emissions or diesel particulates. These are not 
HAP listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA and, therefore, are 
not the pollutants that the final rule is targeting specifically. The 
EPA has recently received a request to list diesel exhaust pursuant to 
section 112(b) of the CAA and is currently reviewing that request. At 
the time of proposal, we investigated DPF. However, at the time of this 
investigation, the effectiveness of DPF on listed HAP emissions from 
stationary sources had not been demonstrated, and the technology had 
only been applied to a handful of stationary RICE. They, therefore, 
were not appropriate as a MACT floor technology. We examined DPF for 
their ability to reduce listed HAP and their cost effectiveness. We 
concluded that there were no data to show that this technology would be 
more effective at reducing listed HAP than oxidation catalysts. We also 
noted that this technology was more expensive than oxidation catalysts, 
so we did not use this technology as a basis for the proposed MACT 
levels. However, the proposal did allow the use of

[[Page 33489]]

technologies other than oxidation catalysts, including DPF, to meet the 
MACT requirements, which are generally numerical, though there were 
certain compliance options that differed depending on the emission 
control used on the engine. Since proposal, we have received new 
information regarding DPF resulting in reevaluating the feasibility of 
applying DPF to stationary RICE. (See Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and 
A-95-35.) In addition, the final rule eliminates all provisions linking 
the standard to any particular control technology. Sources are free to 
choose any compliance option irrespective of the control technique 
applied. We have no reason to believe that DPF are incompatible with 
oxidation catalysts or that they cannot be used instead of oxidation 
catalysts. In the context of its mobile source regulations, we have 
found that DPF can be incorporated with other emission control devices 
without compatibility problems. We agree with the commenter that DPF 
may be able to reduce PM by at least 80 percent and they might be able 
to also reduce CO by at least 90 percent, at least in certain 
instances, though EPA has determined that these reductions can only be 
reliably achieved using ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm sulfur content by 
weight). However, we do not have any actual test data showing that DPF 
can reliably reduce HAP emissions from stationary CI engines at a level 
beyond that already required by the final rule. In particular, we do 
not have data regarding actual use of these devices on stationary RICE, 
or under the range of operating parameters reasonably expected for such 
engines. Also, the ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm sulfur content by 
weight) needed for this technology is not yet available in sufficient 
quantities in the U.S. We, therefore, have determined that there is 
currently not enough information regarding DPF as applied to HAP 
emissions from stationary CI engines on which to base the standard for 
the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter urged EPA to rationalize its policy and 
address the serious public health impacts associated with diesel-
powered RICE by establishing rigorous PM and clean fuel requirements in 
the final rule.
    Response: We appreciate the comments regarding pollution from 
diesel-powered stationary RICE. While we agree that diesel engines emit 
pollutants of concern beyond those covered in the final rule, we do not 
feel it would be appropriate to establish diesel PM or clean fuel 
requirements in the rule. The final rule is a relatively narrow rule, 
regulating only listed HAP from stationary RICE. Diesel PM is not 
currently listed as a HAP under section 112 of the CAA. While 
regulation of diesel PM may be appropriate in the long-term, either as 
a criteria pollutant or as a listed HAP, we do not feel that the final 
rule, which proposed only to regulate HAP already listed under CAA 
section 112, is the appropriate place to promulgate final rules 
affecting criteria pollutants and precursors (like PM or 
NOX). Similarly, the commenter does not provide an 
explanation of the need to regulate diesel fuel, except as it affects 
PM emissions. Therefore, we are not taking any final action with regard 
to these issues in the final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters sought adjustment of the MACT emission 
limitations to reflect fully the test results that are the basis for 
the standard. One commenter indicated that the CO percent reduction 
standard for 2SLB engines should be adjusted to 58 percent to reflect 
the lowest percent reduction achieved during the EPA-sponsored emission 
testing at the CSU Engine Lab, which is the basis for the 2SLB 
standards. The formaldehyde percent reduction standard for 4SRB engines 
should be adjusted to 73 percent to reflect the lowest percent 
reduction achieved during the industry-sponsored testing, which is the 
basis for the 4SRB emission standards. Similarly, the formaldehyde 
concentration standard for 4SRB engines should be adjusted to 370 ppbvd 
at 15 percent oxygen to reflect the highest post-NSCR concentration of 
formaldehyde.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the CO percent reduction 
standard for 2SLB should be adjusted to 58 percent to fully reflect the 
possible variation for the best performing source for these engines. We 
have made this adjustment in the final rule to fully reflect the test 
results obtained for the 2SLB engine tested at CSU. We proposed an 
alternative formaldehyde emission limitation of 17 ppmvd for new 2SLB 
engines in the proposal. The concentration for the formaldehyde 
emission limitation was based on the minimum level of control achieved 
by the best controlled source. This approach takes into account the 
variability of the best performing engine. The formaldehyde emissions 
at CSU ranged from 7.5 ppmvd to 17 ppmvd. Therefore, we chose 17 ppmvd 
at proposal. The 17 ppmvd formaldehyde concentration was based on a run 
conducted at low load (69 percent). After reviewing our approach at 
proposal, we have found it inconsistent to establish the alternative 
formaldehyde emission limitation based on the level achieved during a 
low load test. The approach that we have used for other engine types in 
establishing the alternative emission limitations was to establish the 
limits based on high loads and to require compliance at high loads. The 
expected trend is for emissions to generally increase with decreasing 
load; however, we do not have sufficient data to take the effect of 
load into account in establishing the alternative emission limitations. 
Because of this, the emission limitations are based on performance at 
high loads. We expect that if the emission limitations are achieved at 
high load then the technology will be operating appropriately and will 
also operate appropriately at lower loads. To be consistent, we have 
established in the final rule an alternative formaldehyde emission 
limit for new 2SLB engines of 12 ppmvd. This number is based on the 
minimum level of control achieved by the best performing engine at high 
load conditions. We have specified in the final rule that performance 
tests must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 
10 percent. If a source has demonstrated compliance with 
the emission limit at high loads it is assumed that the technology is 
operating appropriately and will also operate appropriately at lower 
loads. Sources are not required to meet the emission limitation at low 
load.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, we reviewed 
emissions data from an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test 
conducted on two 4SRB 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 
performance on that engine. The percent reduction varied from 75 
percent to 81 percent. At proposal, we selected 75 percent for the MACT 
floor. However, since proposal, we have reviewed the method we used to 
set the MACT floor for existing 4SRB engines. We feel it would be more 
appropriate to include in the analysis the data from the lower 
performing engine, thus using more than a single data point in 
determining the MACT floor for existing 4SRB engines. The revised 
approach was discussed in detail in response to a previous comment. In 
that response, we described our revised approach which takes into 
account the performance of both engines tested, using a weighted 
average where the data point for the lower performer will be worth 22 
percent and the level for the higher performer will be worth 78 
percent. In

[[Page 33490]]

addition, to be consistent with the approach followed for other engine 
types, we have excluded runs conducted at low loads in setting the MACT 
floor. As previously indicated elsewhere in this document, since the 
MACT floor is based on emissions data from runs at high loads, 
performance tests must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 
100 percent load, 10 percent. The commenter stated that the 
formaldehyde percent reduction standard for existing 4SRB engines 
should be adjusted to 73 percent to reflect the lowest percent 
reduction achieved during the industry-sponsored testing. Although the 
commenter is correct in stating that 73 percent formaldehyde reduction 
was the lowest average reduction, 73 percent reduction was achieved 
during a run that was not conducted at high load. For this reason, it 
is not appropriate to use the 73 percent formaldehyde reduction in the 
MACT floor analysis. Similarly, the run where the formaldehyde 
concentration was measured at 370 ppbvd was also not conducted at high 
load, and was, therefore, not used in our analysis of the MACT floor 
for existing 4SRB engines.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the ``burn-in'' period during 
commissioning of new or rebuilt engines should be exempted from 
emission limits. Catalyst manufacturer warrantees typically require a 
``burn-in period'' for new and rebuilt engines prior to placing the 
catalyst on stream. This is intended to allow seating of critical 
engine components (e.g., piston rings). Catalyst placed on stream 
before this burn-in period is subject to physical damage from engine 
backfire and poisoning and or fouling from crankcase oil blow-by. The 
EPA has acknowledged this need in a prevention of significant 
deterioration and title V Permit by including the following language: 
``The permittee shall be allowed to operate the replacement/overhauled 
engine without the use of the catalytic converter assembly for a period 
not to exceed 200 hours from the engine startup, unless a longer time 
period has been approved by EPA, in writing.'' The commenter 
recommended that deviating from the emissions limits during the burn-in 
period or the first 200 hours of operation of a new or rebuilt RICE not 
be considered a violation. The commenter recommended that a statement 
be added at Sec.  63.6640(d) that deviating from the emissions limits 
during the burn-in period or the first 200 hours of operation of a new 
or rebuilt RICE is not a violation.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that an engine burn-in period 
of 200 hours is appropriate prior to installing the catalyst to prevent 
damage to the catalyst. We have, therefore, specified that new or 
rebuilt engines may operate for up to 200 hours prior to installing the 
catalyst in the final rule and that this will not be considered a 
violation. However, sources have 180 days after the compliance date 
specified for their source to conduct the performance test and initial 
compliance demonstration and the 200 hours of burn-in time must be 
conducted within these 180 days.
    Comment: One commenter did not agree with EPA's determination of 
the MACT floor for 4SLB RICE. The database used to determine the MACT 
floor is based on pre-1999 information and includes 542 engines from 
Wyoming. Since 1999, Wyoming has permitted 2,100 4SLB engines. 
Approximately 62 percent of the greater than 500 HP 4SLB permitted 
since 1999 have been required to be equipped with oxidation catalyst to 
control formaldehyde. The EPA reports the number of existing 4SLB used 
in determining the MACT floor at 4,149. Including the 4SLB engines 
greater than 500 HP permitted since 1999 in Wyoming, the total is 
5,664. Of this total, 935 engines have permit conditions requiring 
oxidation catalyst to control formaldehyde, which is 16.5 percent of 
the total. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the emission standard for 
existing sources be no less stringent than the emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. The 
commenter contended that the database used to determine the MACT floor 
is incomplete, and EPA must reevaluate the MACT floor including 
permitting actions post 1998.
    Response: We contacted the commenter who submitted this comment. 
The commenter stated that mostly all of the engines that have been 
permitted are minor sources of HAP. Since the 4SLB engines permitted in 
Wyoming are nearly all at minor sources of HAP, it is not accurate to 
add these sources to the determination of the average of the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources from the source category. The 
determination of the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources must be based on the sources regulated. Since the 
final rule only covers major sources, it is not appropriate to include 
the minor source engines permitted to require oxidation catalyst in 
Wyoming. Moreover, the calculation of the MACT floor does not require 
that we include reductions that were implemented within 18 months of 
the proposal, or 30 months of the final rule. It is not clear how many 
of the engines the commenter discusses were equipped with oxidation 
catalysts during that period. Therefore, we have not reevaluated the 
floor for existing 4SLB engines. The MACT floor of existing 4SLB 
engines remains at no emissions reductions.

E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    Comment: Multiple commenters contended that the CO CEMS requirement 
for large lean burn engines is unreasonable. The commenters stated that 
parameter monitoring and periodic testing should be offered to CO 
monitoring on all lean burn engines. One commenter noted that given 
that the best available emissions control technology for RICE is a 
passive catalyst system and that the operator cannot reduce or improve 
HAP removal efficiency, simplified and less costly environmental 
monitoring requirements should be adopted.
    Response: We now feel that the proposed requirement for 2SLB, 4SLB, 
and CI engines 5,000 HP or above complying with the requirement to 
reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst to use CO CEMS is 
unnecessary and inappropriate. The costs associated with a CO CEMS is 
estimated to be over $200,000 in capital costs and nearly $60,000 in 
annual costs. We consider these costs to be excessive. For these 
reasons, we feel it is not appropriate to include a requirement for 
large lean burn and large CI engines to install CO CEMS in the final 
rule. We feel that the combination of periodic stack testing and 
parameter monitoring is a proper and reasonable alternative for large 
engines. The testing of CO will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the 
source is meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. In addition to 
stack testing, 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines meeting the CO percent 
reduction requirement and using an oxidation catalyst must continuously 
monitor and maintain the catalyst inlet temperature as well as maintain 
and monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly. These 
parameters serves as surrogates of the oxidation catalyst performance 
and by monitoring and maintaining these parameters, continuous 
compliance between stack testing will be ensured. Stationary RICE 
meeting the CO percent reduction requirement that are not using an 
oxidation catalyst must petition the Administrator for approval of 
operating limitations and must continuously monitor and maintain the 
operating parameters that are approved (if any).
    We are including CO CEMS as an option to periodic stack testing and 
parametric monitoring for all lean burn

[[Page 33491]]

and CI engines in the final rule, but it is not required.
    Comment: One commenter observed that deficiencies noted in the 
proposed rule with regard to the test methods and performance protocols 
render CO CEMS infeasible for the RICE MACT. While CO CEMS have been 
demonstrated on some facility types, their application to RICE is very 
limited. Vendor claims for CO CEMS and CO instrumental analyzers, 
unless accompanied by emissions test data obtained under known and 
controlled conditions applicable to the subject source type, should not 
be considered adequate proof of availability and performance. While it 
may be appropriate for EPA to solicit comments on its test methods and 
technical monitoring requirements, the commenter found that it is 
inappropriate to propose requirements for measurement systems prior to 
resolving the current deficiencies with the EPA protocols.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the application of CO 
CEMS must be considered infeasible for all RICE unless accompanied by 
emission test data obtained under known and controlled conditions 
applicable to the subject source category. Since we have previously 
established acceptable CEMS performance specifications, we can allow 
the RICE source owner and operator the optional use of CO CEMS within 
such performance standards as an effective parameter monitor. However, 
as discussed above, we do agree that we should not require the 
installation of CEMS at all affected facilities.
    Comment: Many commenters asserted that the fuel flow and HP limits 
should be removed. Five commenters recommended that EPA specify that 
the emission standards only apply within a 60 to 100 percent load range 
and performance testing should be conducted within that load range. One 
commenter suggested revising MACT requirements to have emission limits 
and performance testing applicable at higher load conditions instead of 
establishing the lowest load to be operated in the future. Another 
commenter recommended that the final standards only apply down to the 
lowest load for which EPA has data and should specify that the 
performance test be conducted in that load range. One commenter stated 
that should EPA pursue minimum load testing and compliance in the final 
rule, the owner and operators should be allowed to retest the unit at 
some time later than the initial performance test to enlarge the 
operating range. The lower operating load and fuel range should then be 
based on the lowest load that has demonstrated compliance irrespective 
of whether the demonstration occurred in the initial or later 
performance tests.
    One commenter stated that the NESHAP provide two options. One is to 
use a catalyst and the other is to limit the formaldehyde. If the 
formaldehyde limit is chosen, however, the engine must maintain an 
operating load of 95 percent or more of the load established in the 
initial testing, which under many circumstances is impractical. For 
example, this option cannot be chosen for the commonly used variable-
load application engine. For variable load engines, there is no choice 
but to use a catalyst. The commenter believed that this approach limits 
the flexibility in controlling these engines.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we required sources complying with 
the alternative formaldehyde limit to maintain an operating load equal 
to or greater than 95 percent of the operating load established during 
the initial performance test or maintain a fuel flow rate equal to or 
greater than 95 percent of the fuel flow rate established during the 
initial performance test. These sources were also required to comply 
with any additional operating limitations approved by the 
Administrator. Based on information received during the public comment 
period, we have reached the conclusion that maintaining the load or 
fuel flow rate within 95 percent of that established during the initial 
performance test may be impractical for many applications, especially 
those in load following applications. Therefore, we have not included 
the requirement to maintain load or fuel flow rate in the final rule. 
Sources complying with the alternative formaldehyde limit that use an 
oxidation catalyst or NSCR must continuously maintain and monitor the 
catalyst inlet temperature and measure the pressure drop across the 
catalyst monthly. Sources complying with the alternative formaldehyde 
limit that do not use an oxidation catalyst or NSCR must petition the 
Administrator for operating limitations to be continuously monitored. 
In the petition for approval of operating limitations, we recommend 
that sources consider establishing load or fuel flow rate as possible 
operating parameters to continuously monitor. Finally, we have based 
the emission standard on test results from high load tests only. 
Typically, as load decreases, the concentration of HAP increases. 
Comments received support this trend. Therefore, we have specified in 
the final rule that performance tests must be conducted at high load 
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    Comment: Several commenters contended that the temperature ranges 
at the catalyst inlet should be revised. Six commenters supported an 
operating range of 450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F for lean burn engines and 
the ability to develop customized catalyst inlet temperature ranges 
based on specific engine operating parameters. One commenter 
recommended using 450[deg]F minimum catalyst inlet temperature for 
2SLB. One commenter also said that owners and operators should be 
allowed to identify more appropriate temperature ranges based on 
performance testing, control device design specifications, manufacturer 
recommendations, or other applicable information (such as a performance 
test on a similar unit).
    Response: We proposed that lean burn and CI engines complying with 
the requirement to reduce CO emissions maintain the temperature of the 
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. We required the catalyst inlet temperature to be maintained 
to ensure proper operation of the oxidation catalyst. We stated in the 
preamble to the proposed rule that, in general, the oxidation catalyst 
performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature decreases. 
Also, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high, oxidation catalyst 
performance could be affected. Finally, the oxidation catalyst inlet 
temperature cannot be too low, or the reduction of HAP emissions may be 
compromised. For these reasons, we proposed that sources complying with 
the CO reduction requirement using an oxidation catalyst maintain the 
catalyst inlet temperature within 500[deg]F and 1250[deg]F. Several 
comments received during the public comment period indicated that the 
temperature range we proposed for catalyst inlet temperature should be 
expanded. Commenters suggested that the lower end of the temperature 
range should start at 450[deg]F. The level of the standard for 2SLB 
engines is 58 percent CO reduction. Similar CO reduction was seen at 
CSU for 2SLB engines where the exhaust temperature was 450[deg]F. For 
this reason, we agree with the commenters that the catalyst inlet lower 
temperature should be set at 450[deg]F. Furthermore, we feel that the 
oxidation catalyst will perform adequately at a temperature of 
1350[deg]F. This was discussed in a memorandum included in the rule 
docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35). Commenters also 
stated that Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc. includes 1350[deg]F in 
their limited warranty statements for

[[Page 33492]]

oxidation catalysts. Therefore, we have written the temperature range 
requirement for catalyst inlet temperatures to be between 450[deg]F and 
1350[deg]F in the final rule. Regarding the comment that owners and 
operators should be allowed to identify more appropriate temperature 
ranges, we feel that requiring a catalyst inlet temperature range of 
450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F is appropriate. Based on information from the 
testing at CSU, information from catalyst vendors, and information 
provided in comment letters submitted to the docket, we feel we have 
adequate information that supports requiring a catalyst inlet 
temperature range of 450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F, and we do not feel it is 
necessary to allow owners and operators the ability to identify and 
define other temperature ranges. Owners and operators have the option 
to petition the Administrator for other operating parameters following 
the procedures in section 63.8 for alternative monitoring procedures.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirement to measure 
pressure drop should be removed. One commenter indicated that the 
operating limitation not to exceed a pressure change of 2 inches of 
water column from the initial performance test has the potential to be 
problematic in practice. Another commenter stated that there is no need 
for continuous pressure drop measurements on engines running 
exclusively on natural gas and at high loads. The commenter has seen 
very little problems with catalyst fouling on their lean burn RICE 
equipped with oxidation catalysts. The commenter understood that it is 
an issue in some installations, but concludes that they would be 
applications either running on other fuels or where engines are run at 
idle or very low load for long periods of time. One commenter stated 
that the proposed requirements to continuously monitor and maintain a 
prescribed pressure differential across the catalyst should be removed 
from the final rule for the following reasons: (1) Although significant 
change in differential pressure across the catalyst may provide an 
indication that the catalyst has become fouled, EPA has presented no 
evidence to suggest that an increase in 2 inches of water column means 
that catalyst performance is impacted; (2) industry data demonstrates 
that the pressure drop can increase more than 2 inches of water column 
without impacting catalyst performance. Such increases may even occur 
because of engine operating conditions. For that reason, EPA's proposed 
2 inches of water column condition might forbid engines to operate 
within part of their normal operating range; and (3) vendors do not 
treat pressure differential as a continuous operating parameter 
requirement. Rather it is presented as a maintenance requirement for 
catalysts on some engines. The general duty clause of Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(i) is sufficient to address pressure drop issues. Finally, 
one commenter stated that the uniqueness of the installation should be 
given consideration in whether or not pressure drop is required to be 
monitored.
    Response: We proposed a requirement for 4SRB engines complying with 
the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR and 2SLB, 
4SLB, and CI engines less than 5,000 HP complying with the requirement 
to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst to maintain the 
catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change 
by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the 
catalyst measured during the initial performance test. Catalyst vendors 
have indicated to EPA that the pressure drop across the catalyst may be 
a good parameter to indicate catalyst performance and that an increase 
in pressure drop is an indication of poor catalyst performance. The 
pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the catalyst is 
damaged or fouled. If the catalyst is damaged or becomes fouled, the 
catalyst performance would decrease. For the reasons provided, we feel 
it is appropriate to use the pressure drop as it serves as a surrogate 
of the catalyst performance.
    We determined at proposal that if the pressure drop across the 
catalyst deviates by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop 
across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the 
catalyst might be damaged or fouled. This was based on information 
received from catalyst vendors which indicated that if the pressure 
drop changes by more than 2 inches of water column, the catalyst should 
be inspected for damage or fouling. For this reason, we feel it was 
appropriate to specify that the pressure drop across the catalyst 
should not change by more than 2 inches from the pressure drop measured 
during the initial performance test. Anything higher than 2 inches 
might indicate damage or fouling of the catalyst. We feel it is 
appropriate to maintain the pressure drop requirement as proposed. 
However, we have reevaluated our position regarding requiring sources 
to monitor the pressure drop across the oxidation catalyst on a 
continuous basis and are no longer requiring sources to install a CPMS 
to monitor this parameter continuously. The pressure drop across the 
catalyst is not likely to change within short periods of time, but is a 
parameter the owner and operator might see changing over a longer 
period of time, not within hours or days. This is consistent with 
comments that stated that vendors do not treat pressure differential as 
a continuous operating parameter requirement. Rather it is presented as 
a maintenance requirement for catalysts on some engines. For this 
reason, we feel it is appropriate to require sources that must comply 
with the pressure drop requirement to measure this parameter monthly, 
as we do not expect the pressure drop across the catalyst to change 
significantly more frequently than monthly. Regarding the comment that 
the uniqueness of the installation should be given consideration in 
whether or not pressure drop is required to be monitored, we feel that 
we have gathered sufficient information from catalyst vendors that 
supports requiring the pressure drop to be monitored and maintained 
monthly. In addition, the commenter did not describe or provide 
information regarding how the uniqueness of the installation would 
affect whether or not monitoring and maintaining the pressure drop 
should be required.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirement to measure the 
temperature rise for rich burn RICE should be removed. One commenter 
had the opinion that 5 percent difference in temperature is not 
feasible or workable in practice. While a NSCR catalyst is more likely 
to show a positive temperature change across the catalyst, very low, or 
even negative, temperature changes are possible while the catalyst is 
functioning normally. One commenter did not think it is appropriate to 
specify that the temperature rise across a NSCR catalyst has to stay 
within 5 percent of the temperature rise (or any other specific value) 
measured at the initial source test. The commenter believed that this 
seems arbitrary. At one facility, the commenter has seen zero 
temperature change across the catalyst. Yet, NOX, CO and 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) reductions were all occurring at high 
efficiency and in full compliance with requirements. It would be more 
appropriate to simply require that NSCR be operated in conjunction with 
an air-to-fuel ratio controller and that the catalyst inlet temperature 
simply be hot enough to ensure it is working, but not too hot to damage 
the catalyst.
    One commenter said that Table 1b of the proposed rule stipulates 
that 4SRB RICE must ensure that the temperature

[[Page 33493]]

rise across the catalyst is no more than 5 percent different. The 
commenter asked what if the temperature is 10 percent different and 
would this not represent a higher degree of oxidation. The commenter 
questioned why this should not be allowed.
    Response: As summarized above, we received several comments 
regarding the requirement in the proposed rule that 4SRB engines 
monitor and maintain the temperature rise across the NSCR. Based on the 
information received, we agree with the commenters that such a 
requirement would be inappropriate and most likely would not provide an 
accurate representation of how the catalyst is performing. We are 
including the requirement to measure the catalyst pressure drop monthly 
and to maintain and continuously monitor the catalyst inlet temperature 
to ensure that it remains between 750[deg]F and 1250[deg]F. It is our 
opinion that monitoring and maintaining these two parameters is 
sufficient to ensure proper catalyst operation. Therefore, we have not 
included the requirement to maintain the catalyst such that the 
temperature rise across the catalyst stays within 5 percent of the 
temperature rise measured during the initial performance test in the 
final rule.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the requirement for an immediate 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) report should indicate that 
this is required only when the actions addressing the malfunction were 
inconsistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction report (SSMP).
    Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the immediate SSM 
report indicated in Table 7, item 2, of the proposed rule. One 
commenter further noted that any reporting requirements should be 
consistent with the General Provisions and the December 2002 proposal 
relating to reporting malfunctions only versus startups and shutdowns.
    Two commenters recommended eliminating the requirement for an 
immediate SSMP in Table 7 of the proposed rule.
    Response: We agree that immediate SSMP reports are unnecessary and 
have the potential of becoming a burdensome activity for sources with 
frequent startups and shutdowns. We have specified in the final rule 
that an immediate SSMP report is only required when actions addressing 
the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were inconsistent with the SSMP.
    Comment: Two commenters requested annual compliance reports instead 
of the requirement of semiannual reporting of compliance reports in 
Sec.  63.6650(3). One of the commenters asked that the language in this 
paragraph be modified to allow the flexibility for annual compliance 
reports in order to make the final rule consistent with other MACT 
standards. The commenter noted that they are seeing in the various 
State and Federal regulations the requirements for monthly, quarterly, 
semiannual, and annual reports, and keeping track of these is becoming 
quite difficult. One of the commenters stated that this will create an 
unnecessary paperwork burden for both the regulated community as well 
as for the regulatory agencies. A more reasonable approach would be to 
require an annual compliance report timed concurrently with the state 
EPA's typical emissions reporting requirement.
    Response: We disagree that semiannual compliance reports are a 
burden. We feel that the submittal of semiannual reports will assist in 
identifying problem areas within a reasonable period of time. The 
requirement for semiannual compliance reporting is not inconsistent 
with previous MACT standards. Several MACT standards require compliance 
reports to be prepared and submitted semiannually. Enforcing agencies 
have been requiring semiannual compliance reports for a long time, and 
this has worked well and has helped EPA enforce rules appropriately. We 
feel the submittal of semiannual compliance reports is appropriate for 
stationary RICE complying with the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that readily available electronic 
records do not have to be stored on-site. In Sec.  63.6660(c), the 
proposed RICE MACT requires that records be kept on-site for the first 
2 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report or record. This requirement does 
not recognize the trend toward computerization of monitoring records. 
Many sites are making an intentional effort to move away from paper 
records of air compliance critical data whenever the opportunity 
presents itself. These electronic records reside on hardware referred 
to as servers. For a variety of reasons, these servers are not always 
located at the major source that would be affected by the RICE MACT. 
There are cases at companies where the server for an affected source is 
not located in the same State as the affected source. The concept of 
``readily accessible'' should be more important, relative to current 
records, than the need for them to be on-site at the major source. The 
commenter urges EPA to recognize the trend to electronic record keeping 
by changing Sec.  63.6660(c) to read as follows: ``(c) Each record must 
be readily accessible in hard copy or electronic form 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 may keep the records off-site for the remaining 3 
years.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter and feel that records that 
can be accessed on-site by a computer are valid and should be 
considered on-site records. Our understanding of the General Provisions 
is that it allows the interpretation that records that can be accessed 
on-site are acceptable. In any case, we have written Sec.  63.6660(c) 
in the final rule according to the commenter's suggestion.

F. Testing

    Comment: Several commenters pointed out that there is a 50 parts 
per million (ppm) NOX limit advisory with the use of CARB 
Method 430. The commenters asked EPA to follow the direction of the 
CARB advisory. One commenter added that due to concerns about matrix 
interferences with CARB Method 430, as expressed in an advisory 
released by CARB, the commenter believed that it is inappropriate to 
include CARB Method 430 as a candidate method until its governing 
agency has more thoroughly researched method deficiencies and revised 
the method or rescinded the advisory.
    Response: We agree that CARB Method 430 use should not be cited in 
the final rule. Therefore, we have not included CARB Method 430 as a 
test method in the final rule.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended that EPA include proposed 
Method 323. One commenter felt that it is imperative that multiple test 
methods and technological approaches be available for formaldehyde 
measurement from engines. The EPA Method 323 addresses this need and 
appears to offer a reasonable alternative to FTIR for formaldehyde 
testing of engines. The method detection limits are within the range 
necessary to demonstrate compliance with a formaldehyde based limit. 
This method was investigated and developed by the Gas Technology 
Institute (GTI) as a low-cost alternative for engine formaldehyde 
measurement and has been validated for application to internal 
combustion engines in research conducted by GTI.
    One commenter said that this method has the advantage of actually 
having been field-validated at the required concentration. Furthermore, 
it is simpler and less costly than the other methods. It is the 
commenter's

[[Page 33494]]

experience that with a similar chilled-impinger method for VOC (Method 
25.3), they found it was critical to maintain near-ice-water 
temperatures in order to achieve 100 percent capture. The method might 
be modified by adding a final impinger and having that analyzed 
separately for breakthrough. Sulfur dioxide is listed as an 
interference, possibly because of its ability to bond with aldehydes. 
This bond is broken under acidic conditions. If this is found to be a 
problem, perhaps the sample can be acidified more to break up any 
complexes.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have included Method 323 
as an optional method for natural gas-fired units in the final rule. We 
plan to develop a FAQ sheet for Method 323. We may include the 
commenter's suggestion for analyzing for breakthrough with another 
impinger and a caution to check the impinger exhaust temperature when 
assessing the data quality.
    Comment: One commenter expressed the view that since EPA SW-846 
Method 0011 uses a similar analytical approach as CARB Method 430, has 
not been validated for application to engines, and has quality 
assurance requirements considered less thorough than CARB Method 430, 
it should be excluded from the list of acceptable methods.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that this method should not 
be specified as an acceptable method for this application. This method 
has not been included in the final rule.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that EPA should allow ASTM Method 
D6348 as equivalent to Method 320. One commenter stated that the method 
is self-validating and includes clarity that the commenter believed 
will provide better consistency and reduce the likelihood of errors as 
FTIR becomes more widely implemented by the source test community. The 
ASTM method was developed and approved following a refereed process and 
considering the input and review of leading experts in the field.
    Response: We identified ASTM D6348-03 as a potential national 
consensus based method in addition to Method 320 and Method 323. Upon 
review, we approved this method as an alternative to Method 320 for 
formaldehyde measurement provided in ASTM D6348-03, Annex 5 (Analyte 
Spiking Technique), percent R must be greater than or equal to 70 and 
less than or equal to 130.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that quarterly emission testing 
with CO portable units should not be full performance tests. This 
provision is burdensome and unnecessary. The final rule should not 
require that the quarterly emission tests be full performance tests for 
the following reasons: (1) For full performance tests, engines in load-
following applications may need to conduct emissions testing at 
multiple operating conditions, in accordance with the General 
Provisions' requirement that performance tests be conducted for 
representative conditions; (2) facilities with load-following 
operations, such as natural gas transmission and storage, may not be 
able to operate the engines over the full range of operating conditions 
on a quarterly basis; (3) full performance tests impose significant 
burden on the owner or operator to develop site-specific test plans, 
provide notification to the permitting authority 60 days in advance of 
the test, and submit the full results within 60 days of completion of 
the testing; and (4) review of other MACT standards indicates that full 
performance tests are not required more frequently than annually.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring full 
performance tests quarterly for sources complying with CO reduction 
requirement may impose significant burden on the owner or operator to 
develop site-specific test plans, provide notification to the 
permitting authority 60 days in advance of the test, and submit the 
full results within 60 days of completion of the testing. We now feel 
that quarterly testing for CO is unnecessary and inappropriate. In the 
final rule, we have specified that new 2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI 
engines complying with requirement to reduce CO emissions must conduct 
semiannual performance tests for CO to demonstrate that the required CO 
percent reduction is achieved. Semiannual performance testing for CO in 
addition to monitoring and maintaining operating parameters will 
ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the applicable CO percent reduction 
requirement is being met. After demonstrating compliance for two 
consecutive tests, the frequency can be reduced to annually. However, 
if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of CO emissions 
from the CO reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual 
performance tests.
    Comment: Some commenters contended that additional performance 
tests should not be required when NSCR or oxidation catalysts are 
replaced with identical units.
    Response: We disagree. Additional performance tests are required to 
be performed even though an emission control device is replaced with an 
identical unit. The performance of identical catalysts can vary 
significantly, and it is not guaranteed that the NSCR or oxidation 
catalyst will achieve the same performance levels.
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA include similar language as 
in the Petroleum Refinery MACT for Catalytic Cracking Units which has 
the provision to make adjustments to one of the monitored operating 
parameters to acknowledge that it may not be possible to achieve worst-
case operation during the performance test. In this scenario, the 
testing of a similar unit should be allowed to serve as the basis for 
establishing acceptable inlet temperatures.
    One commenter remarked that initial performance tests should only 
have to be performed on one engine when an installation is provided 
with several identical engines.
    Response: We do not agree that it is appropriate to allow a 
facility with identical engines to conduct testing on only one of the 
units to establish operating parameters. Although the units are 
identical, operating parameters, as well as emissions, could vary 
significantly from unit to unit. We do not agree that it is appropriate 
to allow a facility with identical engines to conduct performance tests 
on only one of the units to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limits for all of the identical units. It is our experience that 
emissions from identical units can vary significantly.
    Comment: One commenter stated that manufacturer's performance data 
should be allowable in lieu of an initial performance test.
    Response: We are not allowing manufacturer's performance data in 
lieu of an initial performance test. Performance data provided by the 
manufacturer may not be representative of how the engine will perform 
in the field and may overestimate the engine's performance.
    Comment: One commenter contended that the stack testing should be 
no more frequent than semiannual for CO. The stack testing for 
formaldehyde should be no more frequent than annual. The commenter 
added that both should also include the ability to go to even less 
frequent testing based upon good performance.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and feel that it is 
appropriate to require semiannual performance tests for CO for sources 
meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. This has been specified 
in the final rule. The rationale for reducing the CO testing 
requirement was previously discussed. For CO stack

[[Page 33495]]

testing, we also agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to 
allow sources that demonstrate compliance for two consecutive tests, to 
reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually. 
However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of CO 
emissions from the CO reduction requirement, sources must return to 
semiannual performance tests. Regarding formaldehyde testing, we 
disagree with the commenter and feel that we have appropriately set the 
testing requirements for formaldehyde at semiannual performance tests. 
Periodic stack testing for CO and formaldehyde will ensure, on an 
ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the emission limitation 
requirements. For formaldehyde stack testing, if you have demonstrated 
compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of 
subsequent performance tests to annually. However, if the results of 
any subsequent annual performance test indicate that the stationary 
engine is not in compliance with the formaldehyde emission limitation, 
or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume 
semiannual performance tests.
    Comment: One commenter was of the opinion that EPA should allow 
facilities complying with the formaldehyde emission limitation to use 
existing performance test data to demonstrate initial compliance with 
the emission limit.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that existing performance 
test data can be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limit. The facility must petition the Administrator for approval, and 
demonstrate that the tests were conducted using the same test methods 
specified in the subpart, the test method procedures were correctly 
followed, no process or equipment changes have been made since the 
test, and the data is of good quality and is less than 2 years old. 
Existing test data can only be used to demonstrate initial compliance; 
after the initial compliance demonstration, facilities must then begin 
to follow the semiannual compliance test schedule. This has been 
specified in the final rule.

G. Risk-Based Approaches

    The preamble to the proposed rule requested comment on whether 
there might be further ways to structure the final 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. Specifically, we requested comment on the technical and 
legal viability of three risk-based approaches: An applicability cutoff 
for threshold pollutants under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(4), 
subcategorization and delisting under the authority of CAA section 
112(c)(1) and (9), and a concentration-based applicability 
threshold.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 68 FR 1276 (January 9, 2003) (Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Proposed NESHAP) and Docket ID No. A-98-44 (White Papers 
submitted to EPA outlining the risk-based approaches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We indicated that we would evaluate all comments before determining 
whether either approach would be included in the final rule. Numerous 
commenters submitted detailed comments on these risk-based approaches. 
These comments are summarized in the Response-to-Comments document (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).
    Based on our consideration of the comments received and other 
factors, we have decided not to include the risk-based approaches in 
today's final rule. The risk-based approaches described in the proposed 
rule and addressed in the comments we received raise a number of 
complex issues. In addition, we must issue the final rule expeditiously 
because the statutory deadline for promulgation has passed, and we have 
agreed to a binding schedule in a consent decree entered in Sierra Club 
v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C.). Given the range of 
issues raised by the risk-based approaches and the need to promulgate a 
final rule expeditiously, we feel that it is not appropriate to include 
any risk-based approaches in today's final rule.

H. Other

    Comment: One commenter stated that NOX increases due to 
oxidation catalysts for 2SLB and 4SLB engines should be considered in 
evaluating the cost and benefits of the proposed rule. Test results for 
2SLB and 4SLB engines (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35) 
equipped with oxidation catalysts indicate an increase of 
NOX emissions up to about 15 percent and 12 percent for 2SLB 
and 4SLB engines, respectively. It is not clear that the impacts of 
this NOX increase has been addressed with respect to the 
ability of sources to comply with State and local NOX limits 
or impacts on the environment.
    Response: We did consider NOX increases due to oxidation 
catalysts for 2SLB and 4SLB engines. However, the NOX 
increases resulting from 2SLB and 4SLB installing oxidation catalyst 
controls to comply with the final rule are far less than the 
NOX decreases resulting from 4SRB engines installing NSCR 
controls to comply with the final rule, resulting in a net decrease in 
NOX emissions due to the final rule and a benefit to the 
environment overall. In addition, oxidation catalysts are not 
specifically required by the final rule and as only new 2SLB and new 
4SLB engines are affected by the final rule, sources that are concerned 
about NOX emissions can use other methods of HAP emission 
control that are less problematic from a NOX control 
perspective (like in-cylinder controls), or they can use NOX 
control to reduce NOX from engines using oxidation 
catalysts.
    Comment: One commenter contended that data from testing of 2SLB and 
4SLB should be disallowed. The commenter provided the following 
reasons: (1) The range of engine operating conditions in the testing of 
the 2SLB engine and quite probably the 4SLB engine are far leaner than 
the leanest engine in the pipeline RICE fleet. This is indicated by the 
extremely low NOX emissions. (2) Engines equipped with pre-
combustion chambers operating extremely lean are not typical examples 
of the 2SLB and 4SLB fleet. (3) The range of exhaust temperatures, air-
to-fuel ratios, and exhaust oxygen are not typical of 2SLB and 4SLB. 
(4) Engines were laboratory research engines. They were not equipped 
with turbochargers, but with turbocharger simulators that do not have 
the same traits as a turbocharger. (5) Found no information in the 
piping diagrams of insulation on the ducting and manifolds leading from 
the engine to the catalyst. Certainly all ducting is insulated in 
industry. The EPA needs to determine if any insulation was in place. 
(6) The following excerpt from page 77840 of the proposed rule is not 
true: ``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.'' By controlling the air-to-fuel ratio of the engine, the 
exhaust gas temperature, and thus the catalyst inlet temperature, can 
be precisely controlled. (7) If HAP data from the 2SLB and 4SLB testing 
is allowed to stand, then this testing must become the definitive work 
on all pollutants tested as well, including NOX. The 
NOX data should be forwarded to the criteria pollutant 
group.
    One commenter disagreed that the engine at CSU is representative of 
2SLB engines in the industry due to low NOX levels, high 
levels of oxygen, and low exhaust temperatures. The 2SLB engine was 
running considerably leaner than

[[Page 33496]]

similar model engines at similar conditions.
    Response: We compared these parameters to other 2SLB and 4SLB 
engines for which we have information in the emissions database. The 
NOX and oxygen levels and exhaust temperatures for the 2SLB 
and 4SLB engines tested at CSU are similar to those observed for other 
non-CSU 2SLB and 4SLB engines in the emissions database. This analysis 
is presented in a memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID 
Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35). We feel that the 2SLB and 4SLB engines 
tested at CSU are representative of 2SLB and 4SLB engines in the 
industry. As far as insulation is concerned, the catalyst inlet 
temperature recorded should represent catalyst performance at that 
temperature regardless of insulation presence or absence. It should be 
remembered that the MACT standard for new sources under CAA section 
112(d) is based on the level of control of the best controlled similar 
source.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the testing did not include in 
its test protocol dynamic spiking that is required in Method 320 which 
leaves some question to the integrity of the sample measured in the 
test program.
    Response: An alternative quality assurance procedure was proposed 
and followed resulting in data of sufficient quality. The entire FTIR 
sampling analysis system was validated on a 2SLB engine by a dynamic 
spiking of formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde. The data were 
assessed following Method 301 criteria. Then, on a daily basis, the 
analyzer was checked for linearity and alignment, a diagnostic or 
transfer standard consisting of the CO was used to confirm accuracy, a 
second diagnostic standard consisting of CO2, CO, methane, 
and NOX was introduced using the same procedure. Then to 
check sampling system integrity, a formaldehyde standard was introduced 
directly into the instrument and a reading obtained, then it was 
introduced into the sampling system at the sample probe upstream of the 
filter and another reading obtained. The sampling system pass/fail 
criterion was 100 percent 10 percent of the direct-to-the-
analyzer reading. Finally, the diagnostic and system integrity 
procedures were repeated at the end of each day testing. This procedure 
resulted in data of sufficient quality.
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify retesting 
requirements on new sources. Section 63.6610 of the proposed rule is 
ambiguous on the General Provisions requirement for some new sources to 
retest 3 years after promulgation in Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix). Table 8, 
item 24, or the proposed rule does not clarify the issue.
    Response: Section 63.7(a)(2)(ix) of the General Provisions 
discusses performance test dates if the promulgated standard is more 
stringent than the proposed standard. Sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction between the proposal and promulgation 
have the option to demonstrate compliance with either the proposed or 
the promulgated standard. If the owner or operator chooses to comply 
with the proposed standard initially, the owner or operator must 
conduct a second performance test within 3 years to demonstrate 
compliance with the promulgated standard. Since the promulgated 
standard is in some cases more stringent than the proposed standard, we 
have specified in Sec.  63.6610(c) of the final rule that sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction between the proposal and 
promulgated have this option.
    Comment: A few commenters asserted that the basis for any size 
threshold should be expressed in site-rated HP as opposed to 
manufacturer's nameplate HP. One commenter gave the following reasons: 
(1) The database used by EPA to determine the MACT floor provisions 
likely includes the site-rated HP, based on the facility's air permit; 
(2) stationary RICE are typically identified by site-rated HP, rather 
than manufacturer's nameplate HP in the facility's title V permit and 
not all engines have HP on the nameplate; and (3) the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission certified HP for natural gas transmission 
facilities are issued based on site-rated HP.
    Response: We contacted one of the commenters who submitted this 
comment and also an engine manufacturer. Information received from both 
sources indicated that there may be differences between site-rated HP 
and the manufacturer's nameplate rating. Factors such as altitude, 
temperature, fuel, etc. affect what the site-rated HP will be for the 
engine at a specific location. Some manufacturers include the specific 
site-rating on the nameplate of the engine, which is a HP rating which 
has been adjusted to account for the characteristics of the location 
the engine is installed at as well as other parameters affecting the 
engine rating. For these reasons, we agree with the commenters that it 
is appropriate to use the site-rated HP as opposed to the 
manufacturer's nameplate rating for the size applicability criteria, 
because relying on the manufacturer's nameplate rating may not be 
representative of the capability of the engine on-site. This has been 
specified in the final rule.
    Comment: Some commenters asked that EPA include non-aggregation 
provisions for transmission and storage facilities for the Transmission 
& Storage (T&S) MACT.
    Response: We have incorporated this comment in the final rule. The 
non-aggregation provisions for transmission and storage facilities from 
the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHH), which are found in the definition of major source in that 
subpart, are as follows: (1) Emissions from any pipeline compressor 
station or pump station shall not be aggregated with emissions from 
other similar units, whether or not such units are in a contiguous area 
or under common control; and (2) emissions from processes, operations, 
and equipment that are not part of the same natural gas transmission 
and storage facility, as defined in this section, shall not be 
aggregated.
    The non-aggregation provisions in (1) above were already included 
in the proposed definition of major source for the RICE NESHAP and have 
been retained in the final rule. The non-aggregation provisions in (2) 
above have also been added to the definition of major source for the 
RICE NESHAP.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA include the provisions 
to calculate potential emissions for storage facilities from the T&S 
MACT.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have incorporated their 
comment in the final rule by modifying the definition of potential to 
emit in the final rule to include the following: ``For oil and natural 
gas production facilities subject to subpart HH of this part, the 
potential to emit provisions in Sec.  63.760(a) may be used. For 
natural gas transmission and storage facilities subject to subpart HHH 
of this part, the maximum annual facility gas throughput for storage 
facilities may be determined according to Sec.  63.1270(a)(1) and the 
maximum annual throughput for transmission facilities may be may be 
determined according to Sec.  63.1270(a)(2).''
    Comment: Two commenters asked that EPA list diesel PM as a HAP. One 
of the commenters stated that if EPA fails to act on its own 
initiative, the commenter will submit a formal listing petition to EPA. 
One commenter recommended including diesel PM in this MACT and 
including limits and control measures.
    Response: We acknowledge the comments on this issue. However, we 
are not prepared at this time to list

[[Page 33497]]

diesel PM as a regulated HAP, at least not in the context of the final 
rule. We proposed the rule for the purposes of promulgating regulations 
for emissions from stationary RICE that were already listed under 
section 112 of the CAA. While we did mention the diesel exhaust issue, 
we did not include any detailed discussion on the separate issue of 
whether any additional pollutants should be added to the list of 
regulated pollutants under CAA section 112. The decision regarding 
whether to list diesel PM entails several significant issues that have 
not been discussed in the context of the final rule. Therefore, it 
would be inappropriate to take final action on this comment in the 
context of the final rule.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The final rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary RICE 
by an estimated 5,600 tpy in the 5th year after the standards are 
implemented. We estimate that approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB 
stationary RICE will be affected by the final rule. In addition, we 
estimate that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 
RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the final 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 final 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 final rule will reduce 
criteria pollutant emissions including CO, VOC, NOX, and 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 emissions 
reductions of NOX in the 5th year after promulgation are 
calculated to be about 167,900 tpy.

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 final 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 final rule for existing 
stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $68 million, with a 
total national annual cost of $35 million in the 5th year. The total 
national capital cost for the final rule for new stationary RICE by the 
5th year is estimated to be approximately $371 million, with a total 
national annual cost of $213 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 final 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 final rule, as well as 
the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized 
social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the final rule is $248 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 Final RICE Rule on Affected Market Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Change in market    Total social
                       Market sector                          Change in price       output        cost (millions
                                                                 (percent)         (percent)        of 1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Markets: \1\
    Petroleum..............................................             0.015            -0.003           -$15.7
    Natural Gas............................................             0.300            -0.040           -102.5
    Electricity............................................             0.040             0.009             26.6
    Coal...................................................             0.008             0.008              1.1
                                                            -------------------
      Subtotal.............................................  ................  ................            -90.4
Sectors of Energy Consumption:
    Commercial Sector......................................  ................  ................           -161.6
    Residential Sector.....................................  ................  ................            -98.9
    Transportation Sector..................................  ................  ................            -47.0
Mining and Quarrying.......................................             0.050            -0.001            -52.6
    Food and Kindred Products..............................             0.002            -0.002            -16.2
    Paper and Allied Products..............................             0.002            -0.003            -14.5
    Chemicals and Allied Products..........................             0.004            -0.006            -49.8
    Primary Metals.........................................             0.004            -0.004            -18.9
Fabricated Metal Products..................................             0.002            -0.000              5.0
Nonmetallic Mineral Products...............................             0.005            -0.005             -9.9

[[Page 33498]]

 
Other Manufacturing Markets................................         0.0-0.001         0.0-0.001           -53.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 a significant portion of the engines affected by the final 
rule 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 and output is about three-tenths 
of one 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, five fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines 
will be purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the 
final 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 welfare loss for the manufacturing industries affected by 
the final rule is estimated to be approximately $103.0 million for 
consumers and $117.7 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 final rule to producers as a 
percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.12 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 0.003 percent.
    The cost to residential consumers at $98.9 million is larger than 
for any individual manufacturing market, but less than the total 
consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In comparison, 
the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is 0.08 percent 
of residential energy expenditures ($98.9 million/$131.06 billion). The 
commercial sector of energy users also experiences a moderate portion 
of total social costs at an estimated $69.3 million. This amount is 
also larger than for any individual manufacturing sector, but is an 
aggregate across all commercial NAICS codes. As a percentage of fuel 
expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is 
0.07 percent ($69.3 million/$96.86 billion). The cost to transportation 
consumers is estimated to be $47.0 million. This cost represents 0.02 
percent ($47.0 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 final rule will not be significant to any one sector of 
the economy.
    The economic analysis described above assumed that all existing 
4SRB engines and all new engines were located at major HAP emission 
sources and are required to install controls. However, as stated 
previously, we anticipate that at least 60 percent of the stationary 
RICE will be located at area sources which are not affected by the 
final rule. Therefore, the economic impacts described above would be 
reduced.

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 final 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 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 final 
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,600 tpy 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

[[Page 33499]]

``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 tpy, NOX emissions reductions totals 
approximately 167,900 tpy, and PM emissions reductions totals 
approximately 3,700 tpy. These reductions occur from new and existing 
engines in operation 5 years after the implementation of the rule 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. In general, exposure to high concentrations of 
PM2.5 may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular 
disease including asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, especially in 
children and the elderly. Nitrogen oxides are also a contributor to 
acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and 
streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. 
Exposure to PM2.5 can lead to decreased lung function, and 
alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract 
defense mechanisms which may then lead to increased respiratory 
symptoms and disease, or in more severe cases, premature death or 
increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Children, the 
elderly, and people with cardiopulmonary disease, such as asthma, are 
most at risk from these health effects. Fine PM can also form a haze 
that reduces the visibility of scenic areas, can cause acidification of 
water bodies, and have other impacts on soil, plants, and materials. As 
NOX emissions transform into PM, they can lead to the same 
health and welfare effects listed above.
    At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate 
for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For 
NOX and PM, we conducted an air quality assessment to 
determine the change in concentrations of PM that result 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 an 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 
final 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 final 
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 final 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.
    The benefit estimates derived from the air quality modeling in the 
first phase of our analysis uses an analytical structure and sequence 
similar to that used in the benefits analyses for the proposed Nonroad 
Diesel rule and proposed Integrated Air Quality Rule (IAQR) and in the 
``section 812 studies'' analysis of the total benefits and costs of the 
CAA. We used many of the same models and assumptions used in the 
Nonroad Diesel and IAQR analyses as well as other Regulatory Impact 
Analyses (RIA) prepared by the Office of Air and Radiation. By adopting 
the major design elements, models, and assumptions developed for the 
section 812 studies and other RIA, we have largely relied on methods 
which have already received extensive review by the independent Science 
Advisory Board (SAB), the National Academies of Sciences, by the 
public, and by other Federal agencies.
    The benefits transfer method used in the second phase of the 
analysis is similar to that used to estimate benefits at the proposal 
of the rule, and in the proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters 
NESHAP. A similar method has also been used in recent benefits analyses 
for the proposed Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational 
Engines rule (67 FR 68241, November 8, 2002).
    The sum of benefits from the two phases of analysis and the ozone 
benefit transfer estimate provide an estimate of the total benefits of 
the final rule. Total benefits of the final rule are approximately $280 
million (1998$).
    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. Deficiencies 
in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign 
economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes that 
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 HAP 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;

[[Page 33500]]

    (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 have determined that the benefit-
cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic 
benefits of the final rule under a given set of assumptions.
    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 2 of 
this preamble.

                    Table 2.--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; Genotoxicity   Pulmonary inflammation;   function;
                                      mortality; Non-Cancer     Increased                 Morphological changes;
                                      lethaity; Pulmonary       susceptibility to         Altered host defense
                                      function decrement;       respiratory infection;    mechanisms; Cancer;
                                      Dermal irritation; Eye    Acute inflammation and    Other chronic
                                      irritation;               respiratory cell          respiratory disease;
                                      Neurotoxicity;            damage; Chronic           Emergency room visits
                                      Immunotoxicity;           respiratory damage/       for asthma; Lower and
                                      Pulmonary function        Premature aging of        upper respiratory
                                      decrement; Liver          lungs; Emergency room     symptoms; Acute
                                      damage;                   visits for asthma.        bronchitis; Shortness
                                      Gastrointestinal                                    of breath.
                                      toxicity; Kidney
                                      damage; Cardiovascular
                                      impairment;
                                      Hematopoietic; (Blood
                                      disorders);
                                      Reproductive/
                                      Developmental toxicity.
Welfare Categories.................  Corrosion/Deterioration;  Ecosystem and vegetation  Materials change;
                                      Unpleasant odors;         effects in Class I        Damage to ecosystems
                                      Transportation safety     areas (e.g., national     (e.g., acid sulfate
                                      concerns; Yield           parks); Damage to urban   deposition); Nitrates
                                      reductions/Foliar         ornamentals (e.g.,        in drinking water.
                                      injury; Biomass           grass, flowers, shrubs,
                                      decrease; Species         and trees in urban
                                      richness decline;         areas); Commercial
                                      Species richness          field crops; Fruit and
                                      decline; Species          vegetable crops;
                                      diversity decline;        Reduced yields of tree
                                      Community size            seedlings, commercial
                                      decrease; Organism        and non-commercial
                                      lifespan decrease;        forests; Damage to
                                      Trophic web shortening.   ecosystems, Materials
                                                                damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 final 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 
RICE NESHAP, we are specifying only one option, the minimal level of 
control mandated by the CAA, or the MACT floor.
    Based on estimated compliance costs (control + administrative costs 
associated with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements associated with 
the final rule and predicted changes in the price and output of 
electricity and other affected products), the estimated social costs of 
the RICE NESHAP are $248 million (1998$). Social costs are different 
from compliance costs in that social costs take into account the 
interactions between affected producers and the consumers of affected 
products in response to the imposition of the compliance costs.
    As explained above, we estimate $280 million in benefits from the 
final rule, compared to $248 million in costs. Thus, the total benefits 
(associated with NOX and PM reductions) exceed the estimated 
total costs of the final rule by $30 million + B. It is important to 
put the results of this analysis in the proper context. The large 
benefit estimate is not attributable to reducing human and 
environmental exposure to the HAP that are reduced by the final rule. 
It arises from ancillary reductions in PM and NOX that 
result from controls aimed at complying with the NESHAP. Although 
consideration of ancillary benefits is reasonable, we note that these 
benefits are not uniquely attributable to the regulation. The Agency 
has determined that the key rationale for controlling formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and the other HAP associated with the 
final rule is to reduce public and environmental exposure to these HAP, 
thereby reducing risk to public health and wildlife. Although the 
available science does not support quantification of these benefits at 
this time, the Agency has determined that the qualitative benefits are 
large enough to justify substantial investment in these emissions 
reductions.
    It should be recognized, however, that this analysis does not 
account for many of the potential benefits that may result from these 
actions. The net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of the 
other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable omissions to 
the net benefits include all benefits of HAP reductions, including 
reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity effects, and cardiovascular 
and CNS effects, and all welfare effects from reduction of ambient PM 
and SO2.
    Table 3 presents a summary of the costs, emission reductions, and 
quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 4 presents a summary of net 
benefits. Approximately 90 percent of the total benefits ($255 million 
+ B) are associated with NOX reductions from the 4SRB 
subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately 10 percent of 
the total benefits ($25 million + B) 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

[[Page 33501]]

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.

                                Table 3.--Summary of Costs, Emission Reductions, and Quantifiable Benefits by Engine Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Total          Emission reductions \1\ (tons/yr in 2005)
                                                  annualized ----------------------------------------------------
                 Type of engine                      cost                                                         Quantifiable annual monetized benefits
                                                 (million $/      HAP           CO          NOX           PM            \2\ (million) $/yr in 2005)
                                                 yr in 2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2SLB--New......................................           $3          250        2,025            0            0  B1
4SLB--New......................................           64        4,035       36,240            0            0  B3
4SRB--Existing.................................           37          230       98,040       69,900            0  $105 + B5
4SRB--New......................................           47          215       91,820       98,000            0  150 + B9
CI--New........................................           96          305        6,320            0        3,700  25 + B13
                                                --------------
      Total....................................          248        5,035      234,445      167,900        3,700  $280 + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\2\ 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 emission 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 2 of this preamble.


        Table 4.--Annual Net Benefits of the RICE NESHAP in 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Million 1998$ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs 2..........................  $250
Social Benefits 2 3:                      ..............................
    HAP-related benefits................  Not monetized
    CO-related benefits.................  Not monetized
    Ozone- and PM-related Welfare         Not monetized
     benefits.
    Ozone- and PM-related Health          $280 + B
     benefits.
Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs)3..........  $30 + B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\2\ Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants,
  including HAP and CO, as well as NOX and PM10. Benefits in this table
  are associated only with PM and NOX reductions.
\3\ 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 2 of this preamble.
  B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable 
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 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 final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but will 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 final rule) is estimated to be 141,984 labor hours per year at a 
total annual cost of $11,377,592. This estimate includes a one-time 
performance test, 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 information collection request (ICR) are estimated at 
$5,302,416 (an average of $1,767,472 per year), with operation and 
maintenance costs of $1,206,212/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. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical

[[Page 33502]]

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB 
control number for the approved information collection requirements 
contained in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final 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 final 
rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we 
applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR 121, classified by the NAICS. 
The SBA defines small businesses in most industries affected by the 
final 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 final rule on 
small entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In support of this conclusion, we examined the percentage of annual 
revenues that compliance costs may consume if small entities must 
absorb all of the compliance costs associated with the final rule. 
Since many firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance 
costs to customers, actual impacts to affected firms will frequently be 
lower than those analyzed here.
    As is mentioned in section II.A of this preamble, the final rule 
will set standards for new and existing 4SRB units. We identified a 
total of 26,832 existing engines located at commercial, industrial, and 
government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines, 
10,118 engines were excluded because the final rule will not cover 
engines 500 brake HP or less, emergency, or limited use engines. 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. Sales and employment information was unavailable for 12 of 
the 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies linked to engines 
with sufficient information to be included in the cost analysis were 
identified as small entities, and 13 of them own 4SRB engines. These 
small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities.
    Based on a technical support document in the docket (Docket ID Nos. 
OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35) discussing the distribution of major and 
area sources of RICE units, we anticipate that about 60 percent of 
existing and future stationary RICE units will be located at area 
sources. This is because most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines 
are not major sources of HAP emissions by themselves, but may be major 
because they are co-located at major HAP sites. Because area sources 
are not covered by the NESHAP, engines located at area sources will not 
incur any compliance costs associated with the RICE NESHAP. Thus, 40 
percent of the existing 4SRB engines that are above 500 HP and are not 
backup/emergency units (the only existing engines that receive costs 
under the rule) and 40 percent of all new RICE projected to be added in 
the future (above 500 HP that are not backup/emergency units) are 
expected to be subject to today's action. Based on this assumption, 
about 16 of the 39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small 
businesses would be located at major sources.
    In applying the compliance costs to our modeling for generating 
economic impact and small business analyses, we calculate impacts (as 
mentioned in Section 6 of the economic impact analysis) presuming that 
all 39 4SRB engines are located at major sources and hence will bear 
compliance costs associated with this action. We make this presumption 
because it is highly uncertain which facilities are major sources and 
which are area sources. Thus, we assume a worst case scenario that all 
existing 4SRB owned by small businesses are located at major sources 
and subject to the rule to provide a conservative or high estimate of 
the small business impacts. This is called an ``upper bound cost 
scenario'' because only 40 percent and not 100 percent of all RICE 
units are estimated to be at major sources, and therefore subject to 
the rule. It is reasonable to expect that the percentage of facilities 
owned by small businesses that are major sources would be lower than 
the average for the whole source category, so even fewer existing 4SRB 
owned by small businesses may be affected.
    Under the upper bound cost scenario, there are no small firms that 
have compliance costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and 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 population database affected by the final rule. 
The costs to this city are approximately $3 per capita annually 
assuming their engine is affected by the final rule, less than 0.01 
percent of median household income.
    Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the final 
rule will not affect small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales 
ratio (CSR) greater than 3 percent, while potentially up to 15 percent 
(2/13) of those small entities owning RICE greater than 500 HP will 
have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper 
bound cost scenario.
    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 82 (13 x 16,714/2,645) small entities in the existing 
population of RICE owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under 
the upper bound cost scenario described earlier in this preamble 
section.
    In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be 
affected because of the exclusion of engines 500 brake HP or less, the 
percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are affected by the 
final rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion of engines in the 
population database that are greater than 500 brake HP 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 (500 brake HP or 
less) as they do of engines greater than 500 brake HP, the Agency 
estimates that 628 small companies own RICE. Of all small companies 
owning RICE, 13 percent (82/628) are expected to have CSR between 1 and 
3 percent under the upper bound cost scenario described earlier in this 
preamble section and in the economic impact analysis report. 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), 
about 5 percent of small

[[Page 33503]]

companies owning RICE would be expected to have CSR greater than 1 
percent.
    The median profit margin for the industries in our analysis is 
approximately 2 to 7 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit 
margin data, it seems reasonable to consider the number of small firms 
with CSR above 3 percent in screening for significant economic impacts 
on small businesses.
    This screening analysis shows that none of the small entities in 
the population database have impacts greater than 3 percent and two 
small firms that we were able to analyze with the available data have 
impacts between 1 and 3 percent even under the upper bound cost 
scenario described earlier in this preamble section and in the economic 
impact analysis report.
    Section II.A also states that new 4SRB engines will be affected by 
today's action. 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 final rule. In fact, as shown in section 6 of the 
economic impact analysis, 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 final 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 final rule, we 
note the final rule is likely to increase revenues for many small 
firms, including those not regulated by the final rule, due to a 
predictable increase in prices of natural gas in the industry. An 
increase in natural gas prices is expected since the compliance costs 
of today's action will lead to market adjustments such as decreased 
output, thereby leading to increased prices. Concurrent with this 
increase in natural gas prices will be some increase in revenues for 
those small firms in affected industries that are not subject to this 
action, for they experience revenues due to the increased natural gas 
prices without bearing any of the compliance costs.
    Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to 
reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities. In the final 
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 in section II of the preamble, new RICE units with capacities 
500 brake HP or less and those that operate as emergency and limited 
use units are not covered by the final rule, provisions that should 
greatly reduce the level of small entity impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may 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.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule contains a Federal 
mandate that will 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.
Statutory Authority
    As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority 
for the final rule 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 rule is based represents the MACT floor for 
stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and least 
burdensome alternative.
Social Costs and Benefits
    The RIA prepared for the final rule, including the Agency's 
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on 
estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the final 
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected 
industries, the estimated social costs of the final rule are $248 
million (1998$).
    It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the final 
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,600 tpy 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 final 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

[[Page 33504]]

(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 directly and secondary PM that is formed from 
NOX, 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 $280 million + B (1998$). 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 
final rule.
Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is 
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and 
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future 
compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in this 
preamble.
    We do not feel that there will be any disproportionate budgetary 
effects of the final rule on any particular areas of the country, State 
or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or 
particular industry segments.
Effects on the National Economy
    The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the final 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 final rule is presented in 
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This 
analysis provides estimates of the effect of the final rule on most of 
the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact 
analysis are summarized previously in this preamble.
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 final 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 final 
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 final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. 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'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule primarily affects 
private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on 
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to the final rule.
    Although not required by Executive Order 13132, we consulted with 
representatives of State and local governments to enable them to 
provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the final 
rule. This consultation took place during the ICCR committee meetings 
where members representing State and local governments participated in 
developing recommendations for EPA's combustion-related rules, 
including the final rule. The concerns raised by representatives of 
State and local governments were considered during the development of 
the final rule.

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives.
    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

[[Page 33505]]

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

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The basis for this determination is 
provided below.
    The Regulatory Impact Analysis (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 final rule are 
shown for 2005, for this is the year in which full implementation of 
the final 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 final rule. Only a slight price increase 
(about 0.008 percent to 0.04 percent) may occur in three of the energy 
sectors: Petroleum, electricity, and coal products nationwide; and 
approximately a three-tenths of one percent (i.e., 0.30 percent) change 
in natural gas prices. The change in energy costs associated with the 
final rule, however, represents only 0.08 percent of expected annual 
energy expenditures by residential consumers in 2005, a 0.02 percent 
change for transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.07 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 final 
rule. In addition, as is discussed in previous sections of this 
preamble, the economic analysis for RICE assumed that all existing 4SRB 
engines and all new engines were located at major HAP emission sources 
and are required to install controls. However, we anticipate that at 
least 60 percent of the stationary RICE will be located at area sources 
which are not affected by the final rule. Therefore, the economic 
impacts on the energy sector as described above would be reduced.
    Therefore, we conclude that the final rule when implemented will 
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Methods 320 and 323 of 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A; and PS 3, and PS 4A, of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary 
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods/performance 
specifications. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were 
identified for EPA Methods 1A, PS 3, and PS 4A. The search and review 
results have been documented and are placed in the docket (Docket ID 
Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35) for the final rule.
    Two voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable 
alternatives to the EPA methods specified in the final rule. One 
voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6522-00 ``Standard Test Method for 
the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen 
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating 
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers and Process Heaters Using 
Portable Analyzers,'' is cited in the final rule as an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10 for identifying carbon monoxide 
and oxygen concentrations for the final rule when the fuel is natural 
gas.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 for formaldehyde measurement 
provided in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent R must be greater than or equal to 70 and less than or equal to 
130.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the 
final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 
six other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that five 
of these six standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods/performance specifications 
for the purposes of the final rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend 
to adopt these standards. The reasons for the determinations of these 
five methods are discussed below.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3154-00, ``Standard Method 
for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' is impractical as 
an alternative to EPA Methods 1, 3B, and 4 for the purposes of the 
final rule since the standard appears to lack in quality control and 
quality assurance requirements. Specifically, ASTM D3154-00 does not 
include the following: (1) Proof that openings of standard pitot tube 
have not plugged during the test; (2) if differential pressure gauges 
other than inclined manometers (e.g., magnehelic gauges) are used, 
their calibration must be checked after each test series; and (3) the 
frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature 
sensors.
    The voluntary consensus standard, 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,'' is unacceptable as a substitute for EPA 
Method 3A since it does not include quantitative specifications for 
measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures 
and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance 
characteristics that are provided are nonmandatory and also do not 
provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For 
example, the zero and span/calibration drift is only checked weekly, 
whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run.
    Two very similar standards, ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for 
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas 
Concentration,'' and ISO 10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions: 
Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' are 
impractical alternatives to EPA Method 3A for the purposes of the final 
rule because they

[[Page 33506]]

lack in detail and quality assurance/quality control requirements. 
Specifically, these two standards do not include the following: (1) 
Sensitivity of the method; (2) acceptable levels of analyzer 
calibration error; (3) acceptable levels of sampling system bias; (4) 
zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and required 
testing frequency; (5) a method to test the interference response of 
the analyzer; (6) procedures to determine the minimum sampling time per 
run and minimum measurement time; and (7) specifications for data 
recorders, in terms of resolution (all types) and recording intervals 
(digital and analog recorders, only).
    The voluntary consensus standard ISO 12039:2001, ``Stationary 
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and 
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA 
Method 3A. This ISO standard is similar to EPA Method 3A, but is 
missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required 
by ISO 12039:2001 does not include a 3-way calibration valve assembly 
or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are 
introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039:2001 only 
specifies a two-point calibration while EPA Method 3A specifies a 
three-point calibration. Also, ISO 12039:2001 does not specify 
performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or 
sampling system bias tests as in the EPA method, although checks of 
these quality control features are required by the ISO standard.
    One of the six voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search, ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse'' 
(for EPA Method 2 and possibly 1), was not available at the time the 
review was conducted for the purposes of the final rule because it was 
under development by a voluntary consensus body.
    Tables 4, 5, and 6 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart ZZZZ, list the EPA 
testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) 
and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply 
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative 
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, 
performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
today's final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
final rule will be effective on August 16, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 26, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(27) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (27) ASTM D6522-00, 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, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.9307(c)(2) and Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of part 
63.
* * * * *

0
3. 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 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?
63.6625 What are my monitoring, 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

[[Page 33507]]

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

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 a 
stationary RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at 40 CFR 1068.30, 
and is not used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for 
competition.
    (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 with a site-rating of more than 500 brake 
horsepower 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 on or 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 on or after December 19, 2002.
    (b) Stationary RICE subject to limited requirements. (1) An 
affected source which meets either of the criteria in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) through (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 a new or reconstructed emergency 
stationary RICE; or
    (ii) The stationary RICE is a new or reconstructed limited use 
stationary RICE.
    (2) A new or reconstructed stationary RICE which combusts landfill 
or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat 
input on an annual basis must meet the initial notification 
requirements of Sec.  63.6645(d) and the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.6625(c), 63.6650(g), and 63.6655(c). These stationary RICE do not 
have to meet the emission limitations and operating limitations of this 
subpart.
    (3) A stationary RICE which is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke 
lean burn (2SLB) stationary RICE, an existing spark ignition 4 stroke 
lean burn (4SLB) stationary RICE, an existing compression ignition (CI) 
stationary RICE, an existing emergency stationary RICE, an existing 
limited use stationary RICE, or an existing stationary RICE that 
combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 
of the gross heat input on an annual basis, does not have to meet the 
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part. No initial 
notification is necessary.


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 June 15, 2007.
    (2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE 
before August 16, 2004, you must comply with the applicable emission 
limitations and operating limitations in this subpart no later than 
August 16, 2004.
    (3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after 
August 16, 2004, 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, the compliance dates in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
    (1) Any stationary RICE for which construction or reconstruction is 
commenced after the date when your area source becomes a major source 
of HAP must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup of your 
affected source.
    (2) Any stationary RICE for which construction or reconstruction is 
commenced before your area source becomes a major source of HAP must be 
in compliance with this subpart within 3 years after your area source 
becomes a major source of HAP.
    (c) If you own or operate an affected source, 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 1a of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 1b 
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 stationary RICE located at 
a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission 
limitations in Table 2a of this subpart and the operating limitations 
in Table 2b of this subpart which apply to you.
    (c) If you own or operate: An existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an 
existing 4SLB stationary RICE, or an existing CI stationary RICE; a 
stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent 
to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis; an 
emergency stationary RICE; or a limited use stationary RICE, you do not 
need to

[[Page 33508]]

comply with the emission limitations in Tables 1a and 2a of this 
subpart or operating limitations in Tables 1b and 2b 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?

    (a) You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial 
compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you 
within 180 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).
    (b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with either the proposed emission limitations or the 
promulgated emission limitations no later than February 10, 2005 or no 
later than 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later, 
according to Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, and you chose to comply with the 
proposed emission limitations when demonstrating initial compliance, 
you must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate compliance 
with the promulgated emission limitations by December 13, 2007 or after 
startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial 
performance test on units for which a performance test has been 
previously conducted, but the test must meet all of the conditions 
described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The test must have been conducted using the same methods 
specified in this subpart, and these methods must have been followed 
correctly.
    (2) The test must not be older than 2 years.
    (3) The test must be reviewed and accepted by the Administrator.
    (4) Either no process or equipment changes must have been made 
since the test was performed, or the owner or operator must be able to 
demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process or 
equipment changes.
    (5) The test must be conducted at any load condition within plus or 
minus 10 percent of 100 percent load.


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. The test must be conducted at any 
load condition within plus or minus 10 percent of 100 percent load.
    (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] TR15JN04.012

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 control device to a dry 
basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide 
(CO2). If pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15 
percent oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of 
oxygen concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is 
needed. Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in 
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel 
burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, section 
5.2, and the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.013

Where:

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the 
ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero percent 
excess air.
0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100.
Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross 
calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm 3/J (dscf/10 
6 Btu).
Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the 
gross calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm 3/J 
(dscf/10 6 Btu).

    (ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting 
measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.014

Where:

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent.
5.9 = 20.9 percent O2-15 percent O2, the defined 
O2 correction value, percent.

    (iii) Calculate the NOX and SO2 gas 
concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using 
CO2 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.015

Where:

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry 
basis, percent.

    (f) If you comply with the emission limitation to reduce CO and you 
are not using an oxidation catalyst, if you comply with the emission 
limitation to reduce formaldehyde and you are not using NSCR, or if you 
comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of 
formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you are not using an 
oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must petition the Administrator for 
operating limitations to be established during the initial performance 
test and continuously monitored thereafter; or

[[Page 33509]]

for approval of no operating limitations. You must not conduct the 
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by 
the Administrator.
    (g) If you petition the Administrator for approval of 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 
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 petition the Administrator for approval of no 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.
    (i) The engine percent load during a performance test must be 
determined by documenting the calculations, assumptions, and 
measurement devices used to measure or estimate the percent load in a 
specific application. A written report of the average percent load 
determination must be included in the notification of compliance 
status. The following information must be included in the written 
report: the engine model number, the engine manufacturer, the year of 
purchase, the manufacturer's site-rated brake horsepower, the ambient 
temperature, pressure, and humidity during the performance test, and 
all assumptions that were made to estimate or calculate percent load 
during the performance test must be clearly explained. If measurement 
devices such as flow meters, kilowatt meters, beta analyzers, stain 
gauges, etc. are used, the model number of the measurement device, and 
an estimate of its accurate in percentage of true value must be 
provided.


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

    (a) If you elect 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 control device 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.
    (c) If you are operating a new or reconstructed stationary RICE 
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or 
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must monitor and 
record your fuel usage daily with separate fuel meters to measure the 
volumetric flow rate of each fuel. In addition, you must operate your 
stationary RICE in a manner which reasonably minimizes HAP emissions.


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 1b and 2b 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. You must, however, use all the valid data collected 
during all other periods.

[[Page 33510]]

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 1a and 1b and Tables 2a 
and 2b 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 1a and 1b and 
Tables 2a and 2b 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, 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 emission limitation 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 if you 
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating 
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. For 
new, reconstructed, and rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations from the 
emission or operating limitations that occur during the first 200 hours 
of operation from engine startup (engine burn-in period) are not 
violations.
    Rebuilt stationary RICE means a stationary RICE that has been 
rebuilt as that term is defined in 40 CFR Sec.  94.11(a).
    (e) 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, an existing 4SLB 
stationary RICE, an existing CI stationary RICE, an existing emergency 
stationary RICE, an existing limited use emergency stationary RICE, or 
an existing stationary RICE which fires landfill gas or digester gas 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual 
basis, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of 
this subpart. If you own or operate a new or reconstructed stationary 
RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, a new or 
reconstructed emergency stationary RICE, or a new or reconstructed 
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 start up your 
stationary RICE before the effective date of this subpart, you must 
submit an Initial Notification not later than December 13, 2004.
    (c) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE on or 
after August 16, 2004, 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 stationary RICE).
    (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 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 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 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.

[[Page 33511]]

    (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 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.
    (g) If you are operating as a new or reconstructed stationary RICE 
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or 
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must submit an 
annual report according to Table 7 of this subpart by the date 
specified unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, 
according to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(5) of this section. You must report the data specified in (g)(1) 
through (g)(3) of this section.
    (1) Fuel flow rate of each fuel and the heating values that were 
used in your calculations. You must also demonstrate that the 
percentage of heat input provided by landfill gas or digester gas is 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an 
annual basis.
    (2) The operating limits provided in your federally enforceable 
permit, and any deviations from these limits.
    (3) Any problems or errors suspected with the meters.


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) If you are operating a new or reconstructed stationary RICE 
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or 
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must keep the 
records of your daily fuel usage monitors.
    (d) 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 readily accessible in hard copy or 
electronic form on-site for at least 2 years after the date of each 
occurrence, measurement,

[[Page 33512]]

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to Sec.  
63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records off-site 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, an existing stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas 
or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat 
input on an annual basis, an existing emergency stationary RICE, or an 
existing limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with 
any of the requirements of the General Provisions. If you own or 
operate a new stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester 
gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an 
annual basis, a new emergency stationary RICE, or a new 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.
    (5) Approval of a performance test which was conducted prior to the 
effective date of the rule, as specified in Sec.  63.6610(b).


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, dual-
fuel engines, and engines that are not spark ignition.
    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.
    (4) Fails to conform to any provision of the applicable startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction plan, or to satisfy the general duty to 
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    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 
typically formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste 
materials and composed principally of methane and CO2.
    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 stationary RICE means any stationary RICE that operates 
in an emergency situation. Examples include stationary RICE used to 
produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power 
supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local 
utility is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump water in the 
case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency stationary RICE may be operated 
for the purpose of maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided 
that the tests are recommended by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the 
insurance company associated with the engine. Required testing of such 
units should be minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of 
emergency stationary RICE in emergency situations and for routine 
testing and maintenance. Emergency stationary RICE may also operate an 
additional 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations.
    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 in the 
gaseous state at standard atmospheric temperature and pressure 
conditions.
    Glycol dehydration unit means a device in which a liquid glycol

[[Page 33513]]

(including, but not limited to, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or 
triethylene glycol) absorbent directly contacts a natural gas stream 
and absorbs water in a contact tower or absorption column (absorber). 
The glycol contacts and absorbs water vapor and other gas stream 
constituents from the natural gas and becomes ``rich'' glycol. This 
glycol is then regenerated in the glycol dehydration unit reboiler. The 
``lean'' glycol is then recycled.
    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 typically 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 spark ignited 
engine that does not meet the definition of a rich burn engine.
    Limited use stationary RICE means any stationary RICE that operates 
less than 100 hours per year.
    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;
    (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 Sec.  63.1271 of subpart HHH 
of this part, shall not be aggregated;
    (3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol 
dehydration units, storage vessel with the potential for flash 
emissions, combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion 
engines shall be aggregated for a major source determination; and
    (4) Emissions from processes, operations, and equipment that are 
not part of the same natural gas transmission and storage facility, as 
defined in Sec.  63.1271 of subpart HHH of this part, shall not be 
aggregated.
    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 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.
    Percent load means the fractional power of an engine compared to 
its maximum manufacturer's design capacity at engine site conditions. 
Percent load may range between 0 percent to above 100 percent.
    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. For oil and natural gas production facilities 
subject to subpart HH of this part, the potential to emit provisions in 
Sec.  63.760(a) may be used. For natural gas transmission and storage 
facilities subject to subpart HHH of this part, the maximum annual 
facility gas throughput for storage facilities may be determined 
according to Sec.  63.1270(a)(1) and the maximum annual throughput for 
transmission facilities may be determined according to Sec.  
63.1270(a)(2).
    Production field facility means those oil and gas production 
facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer.
    Production well means any hole drilled in the earth from which 
crude oil, condensate, or field natural gas is extracted.
    Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural 
gas, with the molecular structure C3H8.
    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 at full load conditions is less than or 
equal to 1.1. Engines originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but 
modified prior to December 19, 2002 with passive emission control 
technology for NOX (such as pre-combustion chambers) will be 
considered lean burn engines. Also, existing engines where there are no 
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be 
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the 
exhaust at

[[Page 33514]]

full load conditions is less than or equal to 2 percent.
    Site-rated HP means the maximum manufacturer's design capacity at 
engine site conditions.
    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 a stationary 
RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at 40 CFR 1068.30, and is not 
used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for 
competition.
    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.
    Storage vessel with the potential for flash emissions means any 
storage vessel that contains a hydrocarbon liquid with a stock tank 
gas-to-oil ratio equal to or greater than 0.31 cubic meters per liter 
and an American Petroleum Institute gravity equal to or greater than 40 
degrees and an actual annual average hydrocarbon liquid throughput 
equal to or greater than 79,500 liters per day. Flash emissions occur 
when dissolved hydrocarbons in the fluid evolve from solution when the 
fluid pressure is reduced.
    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

    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 at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 percent:

Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for Existing,
       New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   You must meet one of the following
        For each . . .                 emission limitations . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB RICE.................  a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76
                                percent or more. If you commenced
                                construction or reconstruction between
                                December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you
                                may reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75
                                percent or more until June 15, 2007, or
                               b. Limit the concentration of
                                formaldehyde in the stationary RICE
                                exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15
                                percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

     Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for
  Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  You must meet the following emission
        For each . . .                      limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE        a. Maintain your catalyst so that the
 complying with the             pressure drop across the catalyst does
 requirement to reduce          not change by more than two inches of
 formaldehyde emissions by 76   water at 100 percent load plus or minus
 percent or more (or by 75      10 percent from the pressure drop across
 percent or more, if            the catalyst measured during the initial
 applicable) and using NSCR;    performance test; and
 or 4SRB stationary RICE       b. Maintain the temperature of your
 complying with the             stationary RICE exhaust so that the
 requirement to limit the       catalyst inlet temperature is greater
 concentration of               than or equal to 750[deg]F and less than
 formaldehyde in the            or equal to 1250[deg]F.
 stationary RICE exhaust to
 350 ppbvd or less at 15
 percent O2 and using NSCR.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE        Comply with any operating limitations
 complying with the             approved by the Administrator.
 requirement to reduce
 formaldehyde emissions by 76
 percent or more (or by 75
 percent if applicable) and
 not using NSCR; or 4SRB
 stationary RICE complying
 with the requirement to
 limit the concentration of
 formaldehyde in the
 stationary RICE exhaust to
 350 ppbvd or less at 15
 percent O2 and not using
 NSCR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 new and reconstructed compression ignition stationary RICE at 100 
percent load plus or minus 10 percent:

[[Page 33515]]



 Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for New and
    Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  You must meet the following emission
        For each . . .                      limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE......  a. Reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or
                                more; or
                               b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
                                the stationary RICE exhaust to 12 ppmvd
                                or less at 15 percent O2. If you
                                commenced construction or reconstruction
                                between December 19, 2002 and June 15,
                                2004, you may limit concentration of
                                formaldehyde to 17 ppmvd or less at 15
                                percent O2 until June 15, 2007.
2. 4SLB stationary RICE......  a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or
                                more; or
                               b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
                                the stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd
                                or less at 15 percent O2.
3. CI stationary RICE........  a. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or
                                more; or
                               b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
                                the stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd
                                or less at 15 percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 new and reconstructed 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 You must meet the following operating
        For each . . .                      limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary    a. Maintain your catalyst so that the
 RICE and CI stationary RICE    pressure drop across the catalyst does
 complying with the             not change by more than two inches of
 requirement to reduce CO       water at 100 percent load plus or minus
 emissions and using an         10 percent from the pressure drop across
 oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB    the catalyst that was measured during
 and 4SLB stationary RICE and   the initial performance test; and
 CI stationary RICE complying  b. Maintain the temperature of your
 with the requirement to        stationary RICE exhaust so that the
 limit the concentration of     catalyst inlet temperature is greater
 formaldehyde in the            than or equal to 450[deg]F and less than
 stationary RICE exhaust and    or equal to 1350[deg]F.
 using an oxidation catalyst.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary    Comply with any operating limitations
 RICE and CI stationary RICE    approved by the Administrator.
 complying with the
 requirement to reduce CO
 emissions and not using an
 oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB
 and 4SLB stationary RICE and
 CI stationary RICE complying
 with the requirement to
 limit the concentration of
 formaldehyde in the
 stationary RICE exhaust and
 not using an oxidation
 catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with 
the following subsequent performance test requirements:

    Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Subsequent Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Complying with the
       For each . . .         requirement to . . .     You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   Reduce CO emissions   Conduct subsequent
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  and not using a       performance tests
                               CEMS.                 semiannually.\1\
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with  Reduce formaldehyde   Conduct subsequent
 a brake horsepower >=5,000.   emissions.            performance tests
                                                     semiannually.\1\
3. Stationary RICE (all       Limit the             Conduct subsequent
 stationary RICE               concentration of      performance tests
 subcategories and all brake   formaldehyde in the   semiannually.\1\
 horsepower ratings).          stationary RICE
                               exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 CO or
  formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
  operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must 
comply with the following requirements for performance tests:

                     Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--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.           emissions.          at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer.    D6522-00 \1\
                                                       outlet of the                           (incorporated by
                                                       control device;                         reference, see
                                                       and                                     Sec.   63.14).
                                                                                               Measurements to
                                                                                               determine O2 must
                                                                                               be made at the
                                                                                               same time as the
                                                                                               measurements for
                                                                                               CO concentration.

[[Page 33516]]

 
                                                      ii. Measure the CO  (1) Portable CO     (a) Using ASTM
                                                       at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer.    D6522-00 \1\
                                                       the outlet of the                       (incorporated by
                                                       control device.                         reference, see
                                                                                               Sec.   63.14).
                                                                                               The CO
                                                                                               concentration
                                                                                               must be at 15
                                                                                               percent O2, dry
                                                                                               basis.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE.........  a. Reduce           i. Select sampling  (1) Method 1 or 1A  (a) Sampling sites
                                   formaldehyde        port location and   of 40 CFR part 60   must be located
                                   emissions.          the number of       appendix A Sec.     at the inlet and
                                                       traverse points;    63.7(d)(1)(i).      outlet of the
                                                       and                                     control device.
                                                      ii. Measure O2 at   (1) Method 3 or 3A  (a) Measurements
                                                       the inlet and       or 3B of 40 CFR     to determine O2
                                                       outlet of the       part 60, appendix   concentration
                                                       control device;     A.                  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, or      moisture content
                                                       outlet of the       Test Method 320     must be made at
                                                       control device;     of 40 CFR part      the same time and
                                                       and                 63, appendix A,     location as the
                                                                           or ASTM D 6348-03.  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; or ASTM D6348-   percent O2, dry
                                                       control device      03 \2\, provided    basis. Results of
                                                                           in ASTM D6348-03    this test consist
                                                                           Annex A5 (Analyte   of the average of
                                                                           Spiking             the three 1-hour
                                                                           Technique), the     or longer runs.
                                                                           percent R must be
                                                                           greater than or
                                                                           equal to 70 and
                                                                           less than or
                                                                           equal to 130.
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 3 or 3A  (a) Measurements
                                                       O2 concentration    or 3B of 40 CFR     to determine O2
                                                       of the stationary   part 60, appendix   concentration
                                                       RICE exhaust at     A.                  must be made at
                                                       the sampling port                       the same time and
                                                       location; and                           location as the
                                                                                               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, or      moisture content
                                                       RICE exhaust at     Test Method 320     must be made at
                                                       the sampling port   of 40 CFR part      the same time and
                                                       location; and       63, appendix A,     location as the
                                                                           or ASTM D 6348-03.  measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iv. Measure         (1) Method 320 or   (a) Formaldehyde
                                                       formaldehyde at     323 of 40 CFR       concentration
                                                       the exhaust of      part 63, appendix   must be at 15
                                                       the stationary      A; or ASTM D6348-   percent O2, dry
                                                       RICE.               03 \2\, provided    basis. Results of
                                                                           in ASTM D6348-03    this test consist
                                                                           Annex A5 (Analyte   of the average of
                                                                           Spiking             the three 1-hour
                                                                           Technique), the     or longer runs.
                                                                           percent R must be
                                                                           greater than or
                                                                           equal to 70 and
                                                                           less than or
                                                                           equal to 130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
\2\ You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 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.

    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:

[[Page 33517]]



  Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                  Limitations and Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
       For each . . .          Complying with the   demonstrated initial
                              requirement to . . .   compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. the average
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions and using   reduction of
                               oxidation catalyst,   emissions of CO
                               and using a CPMS.     determined from the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test achieves the
                                                     required CO percent
                                                     reduction; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor 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   a. Reduce CO          i. The average
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions and not     reduction of
                               using oxidation       emissions of CO
                               catalyst.             determined from the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test achieves the
                                                     required CO percent
                                                     reduction; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. You have
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions, and        installed a CEMS to
                               using a CEMS.         continuously
                                                     monitor CO and
                                                     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.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce             i. The average
                               formaldehyde          reduction of
                               emissions and using   emissions of
                               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
                                                     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.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce             i. The average
                               formaldehyde          reduction of
                               emissions and not     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 operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
6. Stationary RICE..........  a. Limit the          i. The average
                               concentration of      formaldehyde
                               formaldehyde in the   concentration,
                               stationary RICE       corrected to 15
                               exhaust and using     percent O2, dry
                               oxidation catalyst    basis, from the
                               or NSCR.              three test runs is
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the formaldehyde
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor 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.

[[Page 33518]]

 
7. Stationary RICE..........  a. Limit the          i. The average
                               concentration of      formaldehyde
                               formaldehyde in the   concentration,
                               stationary RICE       corrected to 15
                               exhaust and not       percent O2, dry
                               using oxidation       basis, from the
                               catalyst or NSCR.     three test runs is
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the formaldehyde
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 
emissions and operating limitations as required by the following:

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Emission
                  Limitations and Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
                               Complying with the        continuous
       For each . . .         requirement to . . .   compliance by . . .
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Conducting
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions and using   semiannual
                               an oxidation          performance tests
                               catalyst, and using   for CO to
                               a CPMS.               demonstrate that
                                                     the required CO
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved \1\;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     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
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and
                                                    v. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Conducting
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions and not     semiannual
                               using an oxidation    performance tests
                               catalyst, and using   for CO to
                               a CPMS.               demonstrate that
                                                     the required CO
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved \1\;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameter (if any)
                                                     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
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Collecting the
 RICE and CI stationary RICE.  emissions and using   monitoring data
                               a CEMS.               according to Sec.
                                                     63.6625(a),
                                                     reducing the
                                                     measurements to 1-
                                                     hour averages,
                                                     calculating the
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     of CO emissions
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.6620; and
                                                    ii. Demonstrating
                                                     that the catalyst
                                                     achieves the
                                                     required percent
                                                     reduction of CO
                                                     emissions over the
                                                     4-hour averaging
                                                     period; and
                                                    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.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce             i. Collecting the
                               formaldehyde          catalyst inlet
                               emissions and using   temperature data
                               NSCR.                 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 the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and

[[Page 33519]]

 
                                                    iv. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce             i. Collecting the
                               formaldehyde          approved operating
                               emissions and not     parameter (if any)
                               using NSCR.           data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                    iii. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
6. 4SRB stationary RICE with  Reduce formaldehyde   Conducting
 a brake horsepower >=5,000.   emissions.            semiannual
                                                     performance tests
                                                     for formaldehyde to
                                                     demonstrate that
                                                     the required
                                                     formaldehyde
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved \1\.
7. Stationary RICE..........  Limit the             i. Conducting
                               concentration of      semiannual
                               formaldehyde in the   performance tests
                               stationary RICE       for formaldehyde to
                               exhaust and using     demonstrate that
                               oxidation catalyst    your emissions
                               or NSCR.              remain at or below
                                                     the formaldehyde
                                                     concentration limit
                                                     \1\; and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     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
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and
                                                    v. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
8. Stationary RICE..........  Limit the             i. Conducting
                               concentration of      semiannual
                               formaldehyde in the   performance tests
                               stationary RICE       for formaldehyde to
                               exhaust and not       demonstrate that
                               using oxidation       your emissions
                               catalyst or NSCR.     remain at or below
                                                     the formaldehyde
                                                     concentration limit
                                                     \1\; and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameter (if any)
                                                     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 the
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 CO or
  formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
  operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.

    As stated in Sec.  63.6650, you must comply with the following 
requirements for reports:

      Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
    You must submit a(n)          contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........  a. If there are no    i. Semiannually
                               deviations from any   according to the
                               emission              requirements in
                               limitations or        Sec.   63.6650(b).
                               operating
                               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

[[Page 33520]]

 
                              b. If you had a       i. Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               or operating          Sec.   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.   63.6650(b).
                               reporting period,
                               the information in
                               Sec.
                               63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup,      a. Actions taken for  i. By fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction     the event; and        telephone within 2
 report if actions                                   working days after
 addressing the startup,                             starting actions
 shutdown, or malfunction                            inconsistent with
 were inconsistent with your                         the plan.
 startup, shutdown, or
 malfunction plan during the
 reporting period.
                              b. The information    i. By letter within
                               in Sec.               7 working days
                               63.10(d)(5)(ii).      after the end of
                                                     the event unless
                                                     you have made
                                                     alternative
                                                     arrangements with
                                                     the permitting
                                                     authorities. (Sec.
                                                      63.10(d)(5)(ii))
3. Report...................  a. The fuel flow      i. Annually,
                               rate of each fuel     according to the
                               and the heating       requirements in
                               values that were      Sec.   63.6650.
                               used in your
                               calculations, and
                               you must
                               demonstrate that
                               the percentage of
                               heat input provided
                               by landfill gas or
                               digester gas, is
                               equivalent to 10
                               percent or more of
                               the gross heat
                               input on an annual
                               basis; and
                              b. The operating      i. See item 3.a.i.
                               limits provided in
                               your federally
                               enforceable permit,
                               and any deviations
                               from these limits;
                               and
                              c. Any problems or    i. See item 3.a.i.
                               errors suspected
                               with the meters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.6665, you must comply with the following 
applicable general provisions:

            Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General provisions citation        Subject of citation        Applies to subpart            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1........................  General applicability   Yes.                         ......................
                                      of the General
                                      Provisions.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Yes........................  Additional terms
                                                                                           defined in Sec.
                                                                                           63.6675.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Yes.                         ......................
                                      abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited activities   Yes.                         ......................
                                      and circumvention.
Sec.   63.5........................  Construction and        Yes.                         ......................
                                      reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Applicability.........  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..............  Compliance dates for    Yes.
                                      new and reconstructed
                                      sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..................  Notification..........  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved].             ...........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance dates for    Yes.
                                      new and reconstructed
                                      area sources that
                                      become major sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  Compliance dates for    Yes.
                                      existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  [Reserved].             ...........................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance dates for    Yes.
                                      existing area sources
                                      that become major
                                      sources.
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved].             ...........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)..................  Operation and           Yes.
                                      maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved].             ...........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  Startup, shutdown, and  Yes.
                                      malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  Applicability of        Yes.
                                      standards except
                                      during startup
                                      shutdown malfunction
                                      (SSM).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)..................  Methods for             Yes.
                                      determining
                                      compliance.
Sec.   63.6(f)(3)..................  Finding of compliance.  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)..............  Use of alternate        Yes.
                                      standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Opacity and visible     No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                      emission standards.                                  contain opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).....................  Compliance extension    Yes.
                                      procedures and
                                      criteria.

[[Page 33521]]

 
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Presidential            Yes.
                                      compliance exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..............  Performance test dates  Yes........................  Subpart ZZZZ contains
                                                                                           performance test
                                                                                           dates at Sec.
                                                                                           63.6610.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..................  CAA section 114         Yes.
                                      authority.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..................  Notification of         Yes.
                                      performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..................  Notification of         Yes.
                                      rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality assurance/test  Yes.
                                      plan.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing facilities....  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Conditions for          Yes.
                                      conducting
                                      performance tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)..................  Conduct of performance  Yes........................  Subpart ZZZZ specifies
                                      tests and reduction                                  test methods at Sec.
                                      of data.                                              63.6620.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)..................  Test run duration.....  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..................  Administrator may       Yes.                         ......................
                                      require other testing
                                      under section 114 of
                                      the CAA.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative test        Yes.                         ......................
                                      method provisions.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Performance test data   Yes.                         ......................
                                      analysis,
                                      recordkeeping, and
                                      reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of tests.......  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..................  Applicability of        Yes........................  Subpart ZZZZ contains
                                      monitoring                                           specific requirements
                                      requirements.                                        for monitoring at
                                                                                           Sec.   63.6625.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..................  Performance             Yes.                         ......................
                                      specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  ......................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Monitoring for control  No.                          ......................
                                      devices.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..................  Monitoring............  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..............  Multiple effluents and  Yes.                         ......................
                                      multiple monitoring
                                      systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..................  Monitoring system       Yes.                         ......................
                                      operation and
                                      maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Routine and             Yes.                         ......................
                                      predictable SSM.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  SSM not in Startup      Yes.                         ......................
                                      Shutdown Malfunction
                                      Plan.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Compliance with         Yes.                         ......................
                                      operation and
                                      maintenance
                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)..............  Monitoring system       Yes.                         ......................
                                      installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous monitoring   Yes........................  Except that subpart
                                      system (CMS)                                         ZZZZ does not require
                                      requirements.                                        Continuous Opacity
                                                                                           Monitoring System
                                                                                           (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  COMS minimum            No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                      procedures.                                          require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)..............  CMS requirements......  Yes........................  Except that subpart
                                                                                           ZZZZ does not require
                                                                                           COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d).....................  CMS quality control...  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS performance         Yes........................  Except for Sec.
                                      evaluation.                                          63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                           applies to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Alternative monitoring  Yes.                         ......................
                                      method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to          Yes.                         ......................
                                      relative accuracy
                                      test.
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.
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Applicability and       Yes.                         ......................
                                      State delegation of
                                      notification
                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)..............  Initial notifications.  Yes........................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                           63.9(b)(3) is
                                                                                           reserved.
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for compliance  Yes.                         ......................
                                      extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  Notification of         Yes.                         ......................
                                      special compliance
                                      requirements for new
                                      sources.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of         Yes.                         ......................
                                      performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of         No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                      visible emission (VE)/                               contain opacity or VE
                                      opacity test.                                        standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..................  Notification of         Yes.                         ......................
                                      performance
                                      evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)..................  Notification of use of  No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                      COMS data.                                           contain opacity or VE
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)..................  Notification that       Yes........................  If alternative is in
                                      criterion for                                        use.
                                      alternative to RATA
                                      is exceeded.
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. Sec.
                                                                                           63.9(h)(4) is
                                                                                           reserved.
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of           Yes.                         ......................
                                      submittal deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in previous      Yes.                         ......................
                                      information.

[[Page 33522]]

 
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Administrative          Yes.                         ......................
                                      provisions for record-
                                       keeping/reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  Record retention......  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)..........  Records related to SSM  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)........  Records...............  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)............  Record when under       Yes.                         ......................
                                      waiver.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  Records when using      Yes........................  For CO standard if
                                      alternative to RATA.                                 using RATA
                                                                                           alternative.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............  Records of supporting   Yes.                         ......................
                                      documentation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Records of              Yes.                         ......................
                                      applicability
                                      determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)....................  Additional records for  Yes........................  Except that Sec.
                                      sources using CEMS.                                  63.10(c)(2)-(4) and
                                                                                           (9) are reserved.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).................  General reporting       Yes.                         ......................
                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).................  Report of performance   Yes.                         ......................
                                      test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting opacity or    No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                      VE observations.                                     contain opacity or VE
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress reports......  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).................  Startup, shutdown, and  Yes.                         ......................
                                      malfunction reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)......  Additional CMS reports  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii).............  COMS-related report...  No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                                                                           require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).................  Excess emission and     Yes........................  Except that Sec.
                                      parameter exceedances                                63.10(e)(3)(i)(C) is
                                      reports.                                             reserved.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS data...  No.........................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                                                                           require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Waiver for              Yes.                         ......................
                                      recordkeeping/
                                      reporting.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Flares................  No.                          ......................
Sec.   63.12.......................  State authority and     Yes.                         ......................
                                      delegations.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses.............  Yes.                         ......................
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporation by        Yes.                         ......................
                                      reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of         Yes.                         ......................
                                      information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-4816 Filed 6-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U