Thursday,

December
19,
2002
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Stationary
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77830
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
OAR
 
2002
 
0059;
FRL
 
7417
 
9]

RIN
2060
 
AG
 
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Stationary
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

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

DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
February
18,
2003,
or
by
February
20,
2003
if
a
public
hearing
is
held.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
us
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
January
8,
2003,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
January
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA
(
MD
 
6102T),
Room
B
 
108,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
By
hand
delivery/
courier,
comments
may
be
submitted
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA,
(
MD
 
6102T),
Room
B
 
108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
Also,
comments
may
be
submitted
electronically
according
to
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina,
or
at
an
alternate
site
nearby.
Docket.
Docket
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059
contains
supporting
information
used
in
developing
the
standards.
The
docket
is
located
at
the
U.
S.
EPA,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
in
room
B108,
and
may
be
inspected
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.

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

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

Category
SIC
NAICS
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Any
industry
using
a
stationary
RICE
as
defined
in
the
proposed
rule.
4911
2211
Electric
power
generation,
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.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.6585
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77831
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
above.
The
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
on
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
The
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
However,
late
comments
may
be
considered
if
time
permits.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
email
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
below.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
By
Mail.
Send
your
comments
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
U.
S.
EPA,
Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
The
EPA
requests
a
separate
copy
also
be
sent
to
the
contact
person
listed
above
(
see
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT).
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
above.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Mr.
Sims
Roy,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
Room
C404
 
2),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
27711,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0059.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77832
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
6.
Offer
alternatives.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Mrs.
Kelly
Hayes,
Combustion
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
MD
 
C439
 
01),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
(
919)
541
 
5578
at
least
2
days
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
call
Mrs.
Hayes
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
the
proposed
rule.
If
a
public
hearing
is
requested
and
held,
EPA
will
ask
clarifying
questions
during
the
oral
presentation
but
will
not
respond
to
the
presentations
or
comments.
Written
statements
and
supporting
information
will
be
considered
with
equivalent
weight
as
any
oral
statement
and
supporting
information
presented
at
a
public
hearing,
if
held.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
is
the
regulatory
development
background
of
this
source
category?
B.
What
is
the
source
of
authority
for
development
of
NESHAP?
C.
What
criteria
are
used
in
the
development
of
NESHAP?
D.
What
are
the
health
effects
associated
with
HAP
from
stationary
RICE?
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
Am
I
subject
to
the
proposed
rule?
B.
What
source
categories
and
subcategories
are
affected
by
the
proposed
rule?
C.
What
are
the
primary
sources
of
HAP
emissions
and
what
are
the
emissions?
D.
What
are
the
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations?
E.
What
are
the
initial
compliance
requirements?
F.
What
are
the
continuous
compliance
provisions?
G.
What
monitoring
and
testing
methods
are
available
to
measure
these
low
concentrations
of
CO
and
formaldehyde?
H.
What
are
the
notification,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements?
III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
did
we
select
the
source
category
and
any
subcategories?
B.
What
is
the
affected
source?
C.
How
did
we
determine
the
basis
and
level
of
the
proposed
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations?
D.
Why
does
the
proposed
rule
not
apply
to
stationary
RICE
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less?
E.
Why
does
the
proposed
rule
not
apply
to
stationary
RICE
located
at
area
sources?
F.
How
did
we
select
the
format
of
the
standard?
G.
How
did
we
select
the
initial
compliance
requirements?
H.
How
did
we
select
the
continuous
compliance
requirements?
I.
What
monitoring
and
testing
methods
are
available
to
measure
these
low
concentrations
of
CO
and
formaldehyde?
J.
How
did
we
select
the
notification,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
are
the
air
quality
impacts?
B.
What
are
the
cost
impacts?
C.
What
are
the
economic
impacts?
D.
What
are
the
nonair
health,
environmental
and
energy
impacts?
V.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Development
Background
of
the
Source
Category?

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

B.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
stationary
RICE
source
category
was
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
greater
than
10
ton/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
ton/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.
Most
RICE
engines
or
groups
of
RICE
engines
are
not
major
HAP
emission
sources
by
themselves
but
are
major
because
they
are
co­
located
at
major
HAP
sites.

C.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
sources
in
regulated
source
categories.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standards
are
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
better
controlled
and
lower
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
controlled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory
(
or
the
best
performing
5
sources
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources).
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77833
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
any
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.

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

II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
Am
I
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule?

The
proposed
rule
applies
to
you
if
you
own
or
operate
stationary
RICE
which
are
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
except
if
your
stationary
RICE
are
all
rated
at
or
under
500
brake
horsepower.
A
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
a
plant
site
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
10
tons
(
9.07
megagrams)
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
25
tons
(
22.68
megagrams)
or
more
per
year.
Section
112(
n)(
4)
of
the
CAA
requires
that
the
aggregation
of
HAP
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
an
oil
and
gas
production
facility
is
major
or
nonmajor
be
done
only
with
respect
to
particular
sites
within
the
source
and
not
on
a
total
aggregated
site
basis.
We
incorporated
the
requirements
of
section
112(
n)(
4)
of
the
CAA
into
our
NESHAP
for
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Production
Facilities
in
subpart
HH
of
40
CFR
part
63.
As
in
subpart
HH,
we
plan
to
aggregate
HAP
emissions
for
the
purposes
of
determining
a
major
HAP
source
for
RICE
only
with
respect
to
particular
sites
within
an
oil
and
gas
production
facility.
The
sites
are
called
surface
sites
and
may
include
a
combination
of
any
of
the
following
equipment:
glycol
dehydrators,
tanks
which
have
potential
for
flash
emissions,
RICE
and
combustion
turbines.
The
standards
proposed
in
the
rule
have
specific
requirements
for
all
new
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
and
for
existing
spark
ignition
4
stroke
rich
burn
(
4SRB)
stationary
RICE
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
except
that
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less
are
not
addressed
in
the
proposed
rule.
Stationary
RICE
which
operate
exclusively
as
emergency
power/
limited
use
units
or
which
combust
landfill
gas
or
digester
gas
as
primary
fuel
are
subject
only
to
initial
notification
requirements.
An
emergency
power/
limited
use
unit
means
any
stationary
RICE
that
operates
as
a
mechanical
or
electrical
power
source
during
emergencies,
when
the
primary
power
source
for
a
facility
has
been
rendered
inoperable
by
an
emergency
situation.
One
example
is
when
electric
power
from
the
local
utility
is
interrupted.
Another
example
is
to
pump
water
in
the
case
of
fire
or
flood.
Emergency
power/
limited
use
units
include
units
that
operate
less
than
50
hours
per
year
in
nonemergency
situations,
including
certain
peaking
units
at
electric
facilities
or
stationary
RICE
at
industrial
facilities.
With
the
exception
of
existing
spark
ignition
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
other
types
of
existing
stationary
RICE
(
i.
e.,
spark
ignition
2
stroke
lean
burn
(
2SLB),
spark
ignition
4
stroke
lean
burn
(
4SLB),
and
compression
ignition
(
CI))
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
are
not
subject
to
any
specific
requirement
under
the
proposed
rule.
Finally,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
apply
to
stationary
RICE
test
cells/
stands
since
these
facilities
will
be
covered
by
another
NESHAP,
subpart
PPPPP
of
40
CFR
part
63.

B.
What
Source
Categories
and
Subcategories
Are
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
proposed
rule
covers
new
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
and
existing
spark
ignition
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
A
RICE
is
any
spark
ignition
or
compression
ignition
reciprocating
internal
combustion
engine.
A
stationary
RICE
is
any
RICE
which
is
not
mobile.
Stationary
RICE
differ
from
mobile
RICE
in
that
stationary
RICE
are
not
self­

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77834
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
propelled,
are
not
intended
to
be
propelled
while
performing
their
function,
or
are
not
portable
or
transportable
as
that
term
is
identified
in
the
definition
of
non­
road
engine
at
40
CFR
89.2.
We
divided
the
stationary
RICE
source
category
into
four
subcategories:
(
1)
Emergency
power/
limited
use
units,
(
2)
stationary
RICE
that
combust
landfill
gas
or
digester
gas
as
their
primary
fuel,
(
3)
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less,
and
(
4)
other
stationary
RICE.
We
further
divided
the
last
subcategory
into
four
subcategories:
(
1)
2SLB
stationary
RICE,
(
2)
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
(
3)
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
and
(
4)
CI
stationary
RICE.
We
are
specifically
soliciting
comments
on
creating
a
subcategory
of
limited
use
engines
with
a
capacity
utilization
of
10
percent
or
less.
This
is
further
discussed
in
the
``
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation''
section
of
this
preamble.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
apply
to
stationary
RICE
test
cells/
stands
since
these
facilities
will
be
covered
by
another
NESHAP,
subpart
PPPPP
of
40
CFR
part
63.
The
proposed
rule
also
does
not
apply
to
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
located
at
an
area
source
of
HAP
emissions.
An
area
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
a
plant
site
that
does
not
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
10
tons
(
9.07
megagrams)
or
greater
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
25
tons
(
22.68
megagrams)
or
greater
per
year.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
apply
to
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
below.
These
engines
have
been
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.

C.
What
Are
the
Primary
Sources
of
HAP
Emissions
and
What
Are
the
Emissions?
The
primary
sources
of
HAP
emissions
are
exhaust
gases
from
combustion
of
gaseous
fuels
and
liquid
fuels
in
stationary
RICE.
Formaldehyde,
acrolein,
methanol,
and
acetaldehyde
are
HAP
that
are
present
in
significant
quantities
from
stationary
RICE.

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

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77835
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
operating
parameters
approved
by
the
Administrator.
If
you
choose
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitation
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde,
you
must
also
petition
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
additional
operating
limitations
or
approval
of
no
additional
operating
limitations.
If
the
Administrator
approves
your
petition
for
additional
operating
limitations,
the
operating
limitations
must
also
be
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
If
you
petition
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
additional
operating
limitations,
your
petition
must
include
the
following:
(
1)
Identification
of
the
specific
parameters
you
propose
to
use
as
additional
operating
limitations;
(
2)
a
discussion
of
the
relationship
between
the
parameters
and
HAP
emissions,
identifying
how
HAP
emissions
change
with
changes
in
the
parameters,
and
how
limitations
on
the
parameters
will
serve
to
limit
HAP
emissions;
(
3)
a
discussion
of
how
you
will
establish
the
upper
and/
or
lower
values
for
the
parameters
which
will
establish
the
limits
on
the
parameters
in
the
operating
limitations;
(
4)
a
discussion
identifying
the
methods
you
will
use
to
measure
and
the
instruments
you
will
use
to
monitor
the
parameters,
as
well
as
the
relative
accuracy
and
precision
of
the
methods
and
instruments;
and
(
5)
a
discussion
identifying
the
frequency
and
methods
for
recalibrating
the
instruments
you
will
use
for
monitoring
the
parameters.
If
you
petition
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
no
additional
operating
limitations,
your
petition
must
include
the
following:
(
1)
Identification
of
the
parameters
associated
with
operation
of
the
stationary
RICE
and
any
emission
control
device
which
could
change
intentionally
(
e.
g.,
operator
adjustment,
automatic
controller
adjustment,
etc.)
or
unintentionally
(
e.
g.,
wear
and
tear,
error,
etc.)
on
a
routine
basis
or
over
time;
(
2)
a
discussion
of
the
relationship,
if
any,
between
changes
in
the
parameters
and
changes
in
HAP
emissions;
(
3)
for
those
parameters
with
a
relationship
to
HAP
emissions,
a
discussion
of
whether
establishing
limitations
on
the
parameters
would
serve
to
limit
HAP
emissions;
(
4)
for
those
parameters
with
a
relationship
to
HAP
emissions,
a
discussion
of
how
you
could
establish
upper
and/
or
lower
values
for
the
parameters
which
would
establish
limits
on
these
parameters
in
operating
limitations;
(
5)
for
the
parameters
with
a
relationship
to
HAP
emissions,
a
discussion
identifying
the
methods
you
could
use
to
measure
the
parameters
and
the
instruments
you
could
use
to
monitor
them,
as
well
as
the
relative
accuracy
and
precision
of
the
methods
and
instruments;
(
6)
for
the
parameters,
a
discussion
identifying
the
frequency
and
methods
for
recalibrating
the
instruments
you
could
use
to
monitor
them;
and
(
7)
a
discussion
of
why,
from
your
point
of
view,
it
is
infeasible
or
unreasonable
to
adopt
the
parameters
as
operating
limitations.

F.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Provisions?
Several
general
continuous
compliance
requirements
apply
to
all
stationary
RICE
meeting
various
specified
emission
and
operating
limitations.
If
your
stationary
RICE
is
required
to
meet
specific
emission
and
operating
limitations,
then
you
are
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
and
operating
limitations
at
all
times,
except
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
of
your
stationary
RICE.
You
must
also
operate
and
maintain
your
stationary
RICE,
air
pollution
control
equipment,
and
monitoring
equipment
according
to
good
air
pollution
control
practices
at
all
times,
including
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
You
must
conduct
all
monitoring
at
all
times
that
the
stationary
RICE
is
operating,
except
during
periods
of
malfunction
of
the
monitoring
equipment
or
necessary
repairs
or
quality
assurance
or
control
activities,
such
as
calibration
checks.
1.
For
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
less
than
5000
brake
horsepower,
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
CO
emissions
using
an
oxidation
catalyst,
you
must
conduct
quarterly
performance
tests
for
CO
and
oxygen
using
a
portable
CO
monitor
to
demonstrate
that
the
required
CO
percent
reduction
is
achieved.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
CO
percent
reduction
requirement,
you
must
continuously
monitor
and
record
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature.
The
4­
hour
rolling
average
of
the
valid
data
must
be
within
the
operating
limitations.
If
you
change
your
oxidation
catalyst
(
i.
e.,
replace
catalyst
elements),
you
must
reestablish
your
pressure
drop
and
catalyst
inlet
temperature.
2.
For
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
greater
than
or
equal
to
5000
brake
horsepower,
complying
with
the
CO
percent
reduction
emission
limitation
using
an
oxidation
catalyst,
you
must
calibrate
and
operate
your
CEMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
63.8.
You
must
continuously
monitor
and
record
the
CO
concentration
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
oxidation
catalyst
and
calculate
the
percent
reduction
of
CO
emissions
hourly.
The
reduction
of
CO
must
be
at
least
the
required
percent
reduction,
based
on
a
rolling
4­
hour
average,
averaged
every
hour.
You
must
also
conduct
an
annual
relative
accuracy
test
audit
(
RATA)
of
your
CEMS
using
PS
3
and
4A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B,
as
well
as
daily
and
periodic
data
quality
checks
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
F,
procedure
1.
3.
For
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
4SRB
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
using
NSCR,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
continuously
monitoring
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst.
The
4­
hour
rolling
average
of
the
valid
data
must
be
above
and/
or
below
the
lower
bounds
and/
or
upper
bounds
of
the
operating
parameters
corresponding
to
compliance
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions.
If
you
change
your
NSCR
(
i.
e.,
replace
catalyst
elements),
you
must
reestablish
the
values
of
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst.
The
4SRB
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
greater
than
or
equal
to
5000
brake
horsepower
must
also
conduct
semiannual
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
that
the
percent
reduction
for
formaldehyde
emissions
is
achieved.
If
you
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
percent
reduction
requirement
for
two
successive
performance
tests,
you
may
reduce
the
frequency
of
performance
testing
to
annually.
However,
if
an
annual
performance
test
indicates
a
deviation
from
the
percent
reduction
requirement,
you
must
return
to
semiannual
performance
tests.
4.
If
you
are
complying
with
the
requirement
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust,
the
following
requirements
must
be
met:
a.
Proper
maintenance.
At
all
times,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
maintain
the
monitoring
equipment
including,
but
not
limited
to,
maintaining
necessary
parts
for
routine
repairs
of
the
monitoring
equipment.
b.
Continued
operation.
Except
for,
as
applicable,
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
(
including,
as
applicable,
calibration
checks
and
required
zero
and
span
adjustments),
the
owner
or
operator
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77836
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
shall
conduct
all
monitoring
in
continuous
operation
at
all
times
that
the
unit
is
operating.
Data
recorded
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
out­
of­
control
periods,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
shall
not
be
used
for
purposes
of
calculating
data
averages.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
use
all
the
data
collected
during
all
other
periods
in
assessing
compliance.
A
monitoring
malfunction
is
any
sudden,
infrequent,
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
the
monitoring
equipment
to
provide
valid
data.
Monitoring
failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Any
period
for
which
the
monitoring
system
is
out­
of­
control
and
data
are
not
available
for
required
calculations
constitutes
a
deviation
from
the
monitoring
requirements.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operating
limitations,
you
must
continuously
monitor
and
record
the
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
of
the
stationary
RICE,
and
the
values
of
any
other
parameters
which
have
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
as
operating
limitations.
The
4­
hour
rolling
average
of
the
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
must
be
no
lower
than
5
percent
below
the
operating
limitations
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
After
completion
of
the
initial
performance
test,
you
must
demonstrate
that
formaldehyde
emissions
remain
at
or
below
the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit
by
performing
semiannual
performance
tests.
If
you
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
requirement
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
for
two
successive
performance
tests,
you
may
reduce
the
frequency
of
performance
testing
to
annually.
However,
if
an
annual
performance
test
indicates
a
deviation
of
formaldehyde
emissions
from
the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit,
you
must
return
to
semiannual
performance
tests.
Also,
if
your
stationary
RICE
will
be
operated
at
a
load
that
is
lower
than
the
load
at
which
you
operated
the
stationary
RICE
during
the
initial
performance
test,
you
must
conduct
a
performance
test
and
reestablish
the
minimum
values
for
the
stationary
RICE.

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

H.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements?
If
you
own
or
operate
a
stationary
RICE
which
is
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
you
must
submit
all
of
the
applicable
notifications
as
listed
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
including
an
initial
notification,
notification
of
performance
test
or
evaluation,
and
a
notification
of
compliance
for
each
stationary
RICE
which
must
comply
with
the
specified
emission
and
operating
limitations.
In
addition,
you
must
submit
an
initial
notification
for
each
stationary
RICE
which
operates
exclusively
as
an
emergency
power/
limited
use
unit
or
a
stationary
RICE
which
combusts
digester
gas
or
landfill
gas
as
primary
fuel.
You
must
record
all
of
the
data
necessary
to
determine
if
you
are
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
(
if
applicable)
as
required
by
the
proposed
rule.
Your
records
must
be
in
a
form
suitable
and
readily
available
for
review.
You
must
also
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
Records
must
remain
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
and
then
can
be
maintained
offsite
for
the
remaining
3
years.
You
must
submit
a
compliance
report
semiannually.
This
report
should
contain
information
including
company
name
and
address,
a
statement
by
a
responsible
official
that
the
report
is
accurate,
and
a
statement
of
compliance
or
documentation
of
any
deviation
from
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
reporting
period.

III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Source
Category
and
Any
Subcategories?

Stationary
RICE
are
listed
as
a
major
source
category
for
regulatory
development
under
section
112
of
the
CAA.
The
CAA
allows
us
discretion
in
defining
the
appropriate
scope
of
the
category
and
subcategories.
We
considered
several
criteria
associated
with
stationary
RICE
which
could
lead
to
establishment
of
subcategories
including
differences
in
emission
characteristics,
fuel,
mode
of
operation,
size
of
source,
and
type
of
source.
We
identified
four
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE
located
at
major
sources:
(
1)
Emergency
power/
limited
use
units,
(
2)
stationary
RICE
which
combust
landfill
gas
or
digester
gas
as
their
primary
fuel,
(
3)
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less,
and
(
4)
other
stationary
RICE.
We
identified
emergency
power/
limited
use
units
as
a
subcategory.
Emergency
power/
limited
use
units
operate
only
in
emergencies,
such
as
a
loss
of
power
provided
by
another
source.
These
types
of
stationary
RICE
operate
infrequently
and,
when
called
upon
to
operate,
must
respond
without
failure
and
without
lengthy
periods
of
startup.
These
conditions
limit
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77837
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
applicability
of
HAP
emission
control
technology
to
emergency
power/
limited
use
units.
Similarly,
stationary
RICE
which
combust
landfill
gas
or
digester
gas
as
their
primary
fuel
were
identified
as
a
subcategory.
Landfill
and
digester
gases
contain
a
family
of
chemicals
referred
to
as
siloxanes,
which
limits
the
application
of
HAP
emission
control
technology.
Stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less
were
also
identified
as
a
subcategory.
We
know
very
little
about
these
stationary
RICE
and
without
further
knowledge
have
concerns
about
the
applicability
of
HAP
emission
control
technology
to
them.
As
discussed
above,
we
have
not
addressed
these
stationary
RICE
in
the
proposed
rule.
Finally,
in
considering
the
fourth
subcategory
(
i.
e.,
other
stationary
RICE
located
at
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions),
we
identified
four
additional
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE
within
this
fourth
subcategory:
(
1)
2SLB
stationary
RICE,
(
2)
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
(
3)
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
and
(
4)
CI
stationary
RICE.
The
further
subcategorization
is
necessary
because
engine
design
characteristics,
HAP
emissions,
and
the
application
of
HAP
emission
control
technology
differ
among
the
subcategories.
For
further
information
on
our
rationale
for
subcategorization,
see
the
memorandum
entitled
``
Subcategorization
of
Stationary
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines
for
the
Purpose
of
NESHAP''
in
the
docket.
Stationary
RICE
being
tested
at
stationary
RICE
test
cells/
stands
are
not
covered
by
the
proposed
rule
since
they
will
be
covered
by
a
separate
NESHAP,
subpart
PPPPP
of
40
CFR
part
63.

B.
What
Is
the
Affected
Source?

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

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

1.
Overview
As
established
in
section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA,
the
emission
standards
must
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
MACT
floor,
which
for
existing
sources
is
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources.
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
must
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
level
of
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
controlled
similar
source.
As
outlined
below,
the
MACT
floors
and
MACT
for
existing
and
new
stationary
RICE
were
developed
primarily
through
analyses
of
the
population
database
and
the
emissions
database.
The
population
database
provides
population
information
on
operating
stationary
RICE
in
the
United
States
and
was
constructed
to
support
the
proposed
rule.
The
population
database
contains
information
from
available
databases,
such
as
the
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System,
the
Ozone
Transport
and
Assessment
Group,
and
State
and
local
agencies'
databases.
The
first
version
of
the
database
was
released
in
1997.
Subsequent
versions
have
been
released
reflecting
additional
or
updated
data.
The
most
recent
release
of
the
database
is
version
4,
released
in
November
1998.
The
population
database
contains
information
on
approximately
28,000
stationary
RICE.
We
believe
the
current
stationary
RICE
population
is
about
37,000,
including
those
under
500
horsepower
and
those
at
area
sources,
therefore,
we
believe
the
population
database
represents
about
75
percent
of
the
stationary
RICE
in
the
United
States.
As
a
result,
we
believe
the
information
in
the
population
database
is
representative
of
the
stationary
RICE
industry
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
emissions
database
is
a
compilation
of
available
HAP
emission
test
reports
created
to
support
the
proposed
rule.
The
majority
of
HAP
emission
test
reports
were
conducted
in
the
State
of
California
as
part
of
the
Air
Toxics
``
Hot
Spots''
Information
Assessment
Act
of
1987
program.
Complete
copies
of
HAP
emission
test
reports
for
stationary
RICE
were
gathered
from
air
districts
in
California
and
taken
from
a
previous
EPA
effort
referred
to
as
the
Source
Test
Information
Retrieval
System.
Other
States
and
trade
associations
such
as
Western
States
Petroleum
Association
and
Gas
Research
Institute
(
GRI)
were
contacted
for
available
HAP
emission
test
reports.
Finally,
the
emissions
database
also
includes
preliminary
results
from
a
joint
EPA­
industry
HAP
emission
testing
program
on
stationary
RICE
at
the
Engines
and
Energy
Conversion
Laboratory
at
Colorado
State
University
(
CSU).

2.
General
We
considered
several
approaches
to
identify
MACT
floors
for
stationary
RICE.
One
approach
was
to
review
State
regulations
and
permits
for
stationary
RICE.
We
found
no
State
regulations
or
State
permits
which
specifically
limit
HAP
emissions
from
stationary
RICE.
Another
approach
we
considered
to
identify
MACT
floors
for
stationary
RICE
was
that
of
good
combustion
practices.
We
tried
to
identify
specific
practices
which
might
be
considered
improved
maintenance
or
operation,
such
as
frequent
checks
or
tune
ups,
which
serve
to
maintain
a
stationary
RICE
in
good
operating
condition.
We
thought
the
use
of
such
practices
might
prevent
increases
in
HAP
emissions
which
could
arise
from
poor
operation
or
failure
of
a
stationary
RICE.
Toward
that
end,
we
contacted
State
and
local
permitting
authorities,
as
well
as
the
manufacturers
and
the
owners
and
operators
of
stationary
RICE.
A
more
detailed
discussion
is
presented
in
``
Pollution
Prevention
for
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines''
in
the
docket.
We
were
unable
to
identify
any
specific
good
combustion
practices
from
these
efforts
which
we
could
relate
directly
to
reduced
HAP
emissions.
As
mentioned
above,
the
primary
approach
we
ultimately
used
to
identify
MACT
floors
and
MACT
was
to
review
information
in
the
population
and
emissions
databases.
We
reviewed
the
information
in
the
databases
to
identify
stationary
RICE
operating
with
emission
control
systems
and
then
to
identify
the
level
of
performance,
in
terms
of
HAP
emissions
reductions,
associated
with
the
use
of
the
emission
control
systems.
We
reviewed
MACT
floors
and
MACT
for
the
four
subcategories
separately.
The
MACT
for
emergency
power/
limited
use
units
and
landfill/
digester
gas
units
are
discussed
later
in
this
preamble.
As
discussed
above,
we
did
not
address
engines
with
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
at
or
below
500
brake
horsepower
in
the
proposed
rule
nor
do
we
address
stationary
RICE
that
are
tested
at
stationary
RICE
test
cells/
stands.
The
MACT
for
other
stationary
RICE
are
discussed
below.
We
found
several
stationary
RICE
operating
with
oxidation
catalyst
systems
and
several
operating
with
NSCR
systems.
Oxidation
catalyst
systems
have
been
installed
primarily
to
reduce
CO
emissions
and,
to
some
extent,
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
emissions,
from
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE.
Non­
selective
catalytic
reduction
systems,
on
the
other
hand,
have
been
installed
primarily
to
reduce
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOX)
emissions
from
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
Examination
of
HAP
emission
data
from
the
emissions
database,
as
well
as
preliminary
emission
data
from
HAP
emission
testing
at
CSU
leads
us
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77838
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
conclude
that
oxidation
catalyst
systems
will
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE,
as
discussed
further
below.
Similarly,
examination
of
HAP
emission
data
leads
us
to
conclude
that
NSCR
will
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
4SRB
stationary
RICE.

3.
Existing
Source
MACT
Floor
for
Other
Stationary
RICE
Subcategory
As
mentioned
in
the
previous
section,
MACT
floors
for
existing
RICE
could
not
be
established
based
on
State
and
local
permit
information
because
there
are
no
State
or
local
regulations
for
RICE
regarding
HAP
and
the
use
of
good
operating
practices
because
no
operating
practices
could
be
specifically
linked
to
HAP
emissions
reductions.
Review
of
the
population
database
indicates
that
few
existing
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
or
CI
stationary
RICE
use
oxidation
catalyst
systems.
The
number
is
less
than
1
percent
for
2SLB
stationary
RICE,
about
3
percent
for
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
and
less
than
1
percent
for
CI
stationary
RICE.
In
addition,
less
than
1
percent
of
existing
CI
stationary
RICE
use
a
catalyzed
diesel
particulate
filter
(
C
 
DPF),
which
is
believed
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
to
some
extent.
However,
all
of
these
percentages
are
well
below
the
criteria
for
a
MACT
floor
that
would
require
emissions
reductions
for
existing
sources
(
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources).
We
have
interpreted
average
emission
limitation
of
the
best
performing
12
percent
to
refer
to
either
the
numerical
mean
or
the
numerical
median.
In
this
case,
EPA
has
used
the
median
value,
that
is,
the
level
of
control
at
the
6th
(
best
performing)
percentile
to
determine
the
average.
Thus,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
existing
2SLB,
4SLB,
and
CI
stationary
RICE
is
no
emissions
reductions.
Unlike
the
situation
outlined
above,
more
than
6
percent
of
existing
4SRB
stationary
RICE
use
NSCR
systems.
Therefore,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
4SRB
existing
stationary
RICE
is
the
level
of
HAP
emissions
reductions
achieved
by
the
use
of
NSCR
systems.
We
discuss
this
in
more
detail
below.

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77839
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
The
emissions
database
contains
several
emission
test
reports
that
measured
formaldehyde
emissions
from
4SRB
stationary
RICE
equipped
with
NSCR,
but
no
tests
measure
the
emissions
both
before
and
after
the
control
device,
so
the
control
efficiency
of
NSCR
systems
could
not
be
determined
from
the
emissions
database.
Moreover,
the
test
reports
in
the
emissions
database
provide
single
snapshot
emission
readings
from
stationary
RICE,
which
does
not
account
for
variability
of
emissions
that
may
occur
as
engines
are
operated
in
actual
use.
The
data,
for
example,
provided
little
or
no
information
regarding
variable
parameters
such
as
timing
and
load.
As
a
result,
we
examined
data
from
an
industry
sponsored
formaldehyde
emission
test
conducted
on
two
4SRB
stationary
RICE
equipped
with
NSCR
to
determine
the
level
of
performance
of
NSCR
systems.
These
test
reports
were
reviewed,
and
we
concluded
that
the
engines
and
control
devices
were
operated
correctly
during
the
tests
and
the
tests
were
conducted
properly.
We
considered
several
factors,
such
as
load,
which
could
have
an
effect
on
the
efficiency
of
the
control
device,
but
could
find
no
reason
for
the
variability
of
the
test
results
between
the
two
engines.
We
selected
the
best
performing
engine
based
on
the
highest
average
formaldehyde
percent
reduction.
The
average
reduction
was
79
percent
for
that
engine;
however,
to
establish
variability,
we
looked
at
each
of
the
12
individual
test
runs
performed
on
that
engine.
The
percent
reduction
varied
from
75
percent
to
81
percent.
We
selected
75
percent
for
the
MACT
floor,
which
takes
into
account
the
variability
of
the
best
performing
engine.
The
HAP
emission
data
outlined
above
show
that
the
use
of
NSCR
systems
on
4SRB
stationary
RICE
will
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
by
75
percent
or
more.
As
a
result,
we
propose
a
75
percent
or
more
reduction
in
formaldehyde
emissions
as
the
emission
limitation
for
existing
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
For
existing
4SRB
engines
that
choose
to
use
a
control
or
reduction
technology
that
is
not
an
NSCR
system,
an
alternative
standard
was
developed
based
on
a
formaldehyde
concentration
limit.
For
existing
4SRB
engines
the
alternative
emission
limitation
is
350
ppbvd
corrected
to
15
percent
oxygen.
The
alternative
formaldehyde
concentration
limit
standard
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below.
5.
New
Source
MACT
Floor
Several
existing
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
existing
CI
stationary
RICE
currently
operate
with
oxidation
catalyst
systems.
No
technology
achieving
greater
emissions
reductions
was
found.
Thus,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
new
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
new
CI
stationary
RICE
is
the
level
of
HAP
emission
control
achieved
through
the
use
of
oxidation
catalyst
systems.
The
level
of
HAP
reductions
achieved
through
oxidation
catalysts
differs
for
each
of
the
subcategories
as
discussed
in
more
detail
below.
Again,
for
new
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE,
we
considered
whether
the
use
of
C
 
DPF
might
be
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor.
However,
since
oxidation
catalyst
systems
achieve
greater
HAP
emissions
reductions,
we
concluded
that
oxidation
catalyst
systems,
not
C
 
DPF,
are
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor
for
new
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE.
As
mentioned
earlier,
a
number
of
existing
4SRB
stationary
RICE
use
NSCR
systems.
As
a
result,
the
use
of
NSCR
systems
is
the
best
performing
technology
identified
for
use
by
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
Consequently,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
new
4SRB
stationary
RICE
is
the
level
of
HAP
emissions
reductions
achieved
through
the
use
of
NSCR
systems.

6.
New
Source
MACT
For
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE,
we
know
of
no
other
HAP
emission
control
technology
than
the
use
of
oxidation
catalyst
systems
(
other
than
possibly
the
use
of
C
 
DPF
on
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE,
as
discussed
earlier).
The
fuel
switching
analysis
presented
previously
also
applies
to
new
2SLB,
4SLB,
and
CI
RICE.
Therefore,
we
were
unable
to
identify
any
beyond­
the­
floor
regulatory
alternative
for
these
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE.
Consequently,
we
conclude
that
MACT
for
new
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
new
CI
stationary
RICE
is
equivalent
to
the
MACT
floor
(
i.
e.,
the
level
of
HAP
emission
control
achieved
through
the
use
of
oxidation
catalyst
systems).
Although
the
basis
for
MACT
for
each
of
these
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE
is
the
same,
as
outlined
below,
HAP
emission
data
from
the
emissions
database
and
preliminary
emission
data
from
the
HAP
emission
testing
program
at
CSU
indicate
that
the
level
of
performance
achieved
by
oxidation
catalyst
systems
on
each
of
these
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE
differ.
As
a
result,
we
propose
different
emission
limitations
for
each
of
these
subcategories
of
new
stationary
RICE.
As
mentioned
above,
emission
testing
to
measure
HAP
emissions
is
expensive,
and
we
know
of
no
CEMS
which
could
be
used
to
continuously
monitor
all
HAP
emissions.
As
a
result,
we
first
examined
the
emission
data
to
determine
if
a
single
pollutant
could
serve
as
a
surrogate
for
HAP
emissions.
Again,
we
focused
on
CO
emission
concentration
and
CO
emissions
reductions
initially.
In
this
case,
we
found
that
there
is
a
good
relationship
between
CO
emissions
reductions
and
HAP
emissions
reductions
from
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
equipped
with
oxidation
catalyst
systems.
When
CO
emissions
are
reduced,
HAP
emissions
are
reduced
in
a
relatively
proportional
manner.
As
a
result,
CO
emissions
reductions
can
serve
as
a
surrogate
for
HAP
emissions
reductions
for
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
operating
with
oxidation
catalyst
systems.
A
joint
EPA­
industry
HAP
emission
testing
program
at
CSU
provided
HAP
and
CO
emissions
data
which
form
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor
and
MACT
for
2SLB,
4SLB,
and
CI
stationary
RICE.
A
single
engine
of
each
type
equipped
with
an
oxidation
catalyst
control
system
was
tested.
The
engines
were
all
overhauled
before
the
testing
and
were
expected
to
operate
as
well
as
new
engines.
The
oxidation
catalyst
control
systems
represented
the
best
HAP
emission
control
known
for
each
type
of
engine.
All
catalyst
systems
were
new
but
were
operated
for
a
number
of
hours
until
the
CO
percent
reduction
stabilized.
This
assured
that
the
performance
would
be
not
overestimated
by
the
use
of
a
new
catalyst.
Prior
to
the
testing,
EPA
and
industry
developed
a
list
of
engine
operating
parameters
that
were
known
to
vary
throughout
the
U.
S.
for
each
type
of
engine.
The
engines
and
control
devices
were
tested
at
typical
engine
conditions
in
which
these
operating
parameters
were
varied.
The
variations
in
the
emission
reduction
results
for
each
engine
type
are
due
to
the
variability
of
the
engine
and
control
system
and
include
a
representation
of
the
performance
of
the
best
controlled
source
for
new
engines.
The
fluctuations
in
HAP
emission
control
represent
the
variability
inherent
in
operating
the
engine
and
control
device
combination
under
various
conditions.
Some
parameters
such
as
the
exhaust
temperature
are
an
important
determinate
of
the
catalytic
activity
and
resulting
emissions
reductions
but
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77840
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
cannot
be
controlled
by
the
operator
because
they
are
a
result
of
factors
such
as
engine
design,
ambient
temperature,
and
designed
air­
to­
fuel
ratio.
These
result
in
a
significant
source
of
variability
that
cannot
be
controlled.
The
HAP
emission
data
mentioned
above
show
that
the
use
of
oxidation
catalyst
systems
on
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
will
reduce
uncontrolled
CO
emissions
by
60
percent
or
more,
93
percent
or
more,
and
70
percent
or
more,
respectively,
taking
into
account
the
variability
of
results
achieved
when
tested
under
various
operating
parameters.
As
a
result,
we
propose:
(
1)
A
60
percent
or
more
reduction
in
CO
uncontrolled
emissions
as
the
emission
limitation
for
new
2SLB
stationary
RICE,
(
2)
a
93
percent
or
more
reduction
in
CO
emissions
as
the
emission
limitation
for
new
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
and
(
3)
a
70
percent
or
more
reduction
in
CO
emissions
as
the
emission
limitation
for
new
CI
stationary
RICE.
The
variation
in
percent
reduction
of
CO
achieved
between
2SLB
stationary
RICE
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
is
a
result
of
the
higher
exhaust
temperatures
for
4SLB
stationary
RICE.
The
2SLB
stationary
RICE
tested
at
CSU
had
an
average
exhaust
temperature
of
530
degrees
Fahrenheit,
while
the
4SLB
stationary
RICE
had
an
average
exhaust
temperature
of
691
degrees
Fahrenheit.
In
general,
higher
exhaust
temperatures
lead
to
better
catalyst
performance.
This
difference
in
temperatures
is
a
function
of
the
inherent
design
of
these
engine
types
and
cannot
be
controlled
by
the
operator.
For
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
we
know
of
no
other
HAP
emission
control
technology
than
the
use
of
NSCR
systems.
The
fuel
switching
analysis
presented
previously
also
applies
to
new
4SRB
RICE.
As
a
result,
we
were
unable
to
identify
any
beyond­
the­
floor
regulatory
alternative.
Consequently,
we
conclude
that
MACT
for
new
4SRB
stationary
RICE
is
equivalent
to
the
MACT
floor
(
i.
e.,
the
level
of
HAP
emission
control
achieved
through
the
use
of
NSCR
systems).
The
basis
for
MACT
for
new
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
therefore,
is
the
same
as
that
for
existing
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
We
believe
NSCR
systems
will
achieve
the
same
level
of
performance
on
existing
as
well
as
new
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
Consequently,
we
propose
the
same
emission
limitation
for
both
existing
and
new
4SRB
stationary
RICE
(
i.
e.,
75
percent
or
more
reduction
in
formaldehyde
emissions).
For
new
4SRB
engines
that
choose
to
use
a
control
or
reduction
technology
that
is
not
an
NSCR
system,
and
for
new
2SLB,
4SLB,
and
CI
engines
that
choose
a
control
or
reduction
technology
that
is
not
an
oxidation
catalyst
system,
an
alternative
standard
was
developed
based
on
formaldehyde
concentration
limits.
The
alternative
emission
limits
for
new
RICE
sources
are:
17
parts
per
million
by
volume
dry
basis
(
ppmvd)
formaldehyde
for
2SLB
engines,
14
ppmvd
formaldehyde
for
4SLB
engines,
350
ppbvd
formaldehyde
for
4SRB
engines,
and
580
ppbvd
formaldehyde
for
CI
engines,
all
corrected
to
15
percent
oxygen.
The
alternative
formaldehyde
concentration
limit
standard
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

7.
MACT
Floor
and
MACT
for
Other
Subcategories
Although
the
proposed
rule
applies
to
all
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
above
500
brake
horsepower
located
at
major
sources
excluding
stationary
RICE
being
tested
at
stationary
RICE
test
cells/
stands,
there
are
two
subcategories
of
stationary
RICE
for
which
the
appropriate
emission
standard
is
no
emissions
reductions;
therefore,
they
would
not
be
required
to
comply
with
any
emissions
limitations
or
operating
limitations
under
the
proposed
rule.
These
subcategories
are
stationary
RICE
which
combust
digester
or
landfill
gas
as
the
primary
fuel
and
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE.

a.
Stationary
RICE
Combusting
Digester
or
Landfill
Gas
Examination
of
the
population
database
shows
that
there
are
no
stationary
RICE
burning
digester
gas
or
landfill
gas
as
the
primary
fuel
operating
with
emission
control
technologies
which
reduce
HAP
emissions.
Therefore,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
the
subcategory
is
no
emissions
reductions
for
both
existing
as
well
as
new
stationary
RICE.
We
considered
the
applicability
of
HAP
emission
control
technology,
such
as
the
use
of
an
oxidation
catalyst
system
for
example,
to
this
subcategory
of
stationary
RICE
for
beyond­
the­
floor
controls.
However,
digester
gases
and
landfill
gases
contain
a
family
of
silicon
based
compounds
called
siloxanes.
Combustion
of
siloxanes
can
foul
post
combustion
catalysts,
rendering
them
inoperable
within
a
short
period
of
time.
We
considered
pretreatment
systems
to
remove
siloxanes
from
the
gases
prior
to
combustion;
however,
we
found
no
pretreatment
systems
in
use
and
the
long­
term
effectiveness
is
unknown.
As
a
result,
we
know
of
no
emission
control
technology
which
could
be
applied
to
the
subcategory
of
stationary
RICE
to
reduce
HAP
emissions.
We
also
considered
fuel
switching
for
this
subcategory
of
RICE.
Switching
to
a
different
fuel
such
as
natural
gas
or
diesel
would
potentially
allow
the
RICE
to
apply
the
MACT
controls.
However,
fuel
switching
would
defeat
the
purpose
of
these
units,
which
are
intended
to
use
this
type
of
fuel.
Fuel
switching
would
also
cause
the
landfill/
digester
gas
either
to
escape
uncontrolled
or
to
be
burned
in
a
flare
with
no
energy
recovery.
We
believe
that
switching
landfill
or
digester
gas
to
another
fuel
is
inappropriate
and
is
an
environmentally
inferior
option.
For
that
reason,
we
were
unable
to
identify
a
beyond­
the­
floor
regulatory
alternative
for
either
existing
or
new
stationary
RICE
combusting
digester
gases
or
landfill
gases
as
the
primary
fuel.
Consequently,
we
conclude
that
MACT
for
the
subcategory
of
stationary
RICE
is
the
MACT
floor
(
i.
e.,
no
emissions
reductions).
Thus,
we
propose
no
requirements
for
emissions
testing
for
stationary
RICE
which
combust
landfill
gases
or
digester
gases
as
the
primary
fuels.

b.
Emergency
Power/
Limited
Use
Stationary
RICE
Emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
operate
only
in
emergencies
when
the
normal
source
of
power
at
a
facility
fails.
Based
on
our
review
of
the
population
database,
there
are
no
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
which
operate
with
HAP
emission
control
technology.
Thus,
we
conclude
the
MACT
floor
for
the
subcategory
is
no
emissions
reductions
for
both
existing
as
well
as
new
stationary
RICE.
As
with
stationary
RICE
burning
digester
gases
or
landfill
gases,
we
also
have
a
number
of
concerns
regarding
the
applicability
of
HAP
emission
control
technology
to
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE.
Emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
operate
infrequently
but
when
called
upon
to
operate,
they
must
respond
immediately
without
fail
and
without
lengthy
startup
periods.
Under
such
conditions,
we
have
doubts
whether
HAP
emission
control
technology,
such
as
the
use
of
oxidation
catalyst
systems,
would
effectively
reduce
HAP
emissions.
Despite
the
concerns,
we
examined
the
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
removed
for
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
regulatory
alternative.
Whether
our
concerns
are
warranted
or
not,
we
consider
the
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
removed
for
the
alternative
unreasonable,
primarily
because
of
the
very
small
reductions
in
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77841
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
HAP
emissions
which
might
be
achieved.
Non­
air
quality
health,
environmental
impacts,
nor
energy
effects
were
significant
factors.
For
all
of
the
reasons
listed
above,
we
conclude
that
MACT
for
both
existing
as
well
as
new
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
is
the
MACT
floor
(
i.
e.,
no
emissions
reductions).
Consequently,
we
propose
no
requirements
for
emissions
testing
for
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE.

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

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

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

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

1.
CO
Percent
Reduction
Standard
We
are
proposing
a
CO
percent
reduction
standard
if
you
use
an
oxidation
catalyst
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
new
or
reconstructed
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE.
A
control
efficiency
for
CO
was
chosen
because
CO
control
is
a
surrogate
for
HAP
control
for
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE,
and
because
it
is
easier
to
monitor
CO
than
several
HAP.

2.
Formaldehyde
Percent
Reduction
Standard
We
are
proposing
a
formaldehyde
percent
reduction
standard
if
you
use
NSCR
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
existing,
new,
and
reconstructed
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
A
control
efficiency
for
formaldehyde
was
chosen
because
formaldehyde
control
is
a
surrogate
for
HAP
control
for
4SRB
stationary
RICE,
and
because
a
good
relationship
was
not
found
between
CO
emissions
reductions
and
HAP
emissions
reductions
for
4SRB
stationary
RICE.

3.
Formaldehyde
Concentration
Limit
We
are
also
proposing
alternative
emission
limitations
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
for
new
2SLB,
4SLB,
and
CI
engines
not
using
oxidation
catalyst
control
systems
and
for
existing
and
new
4SRB
engines
not
using
NSCR
control
systems.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
2SLB
or
4SLB
stationary
RICE
or
a
CI
stationary
RICE
using
an
oxidation
catalyst,
you
must
comply
with
the
CO
percentage
emission
limitation.
If
you
use
some
means
other
than
an
oxidation
catalyst,
you
must
comply
with
the
alternative
emission
limitation
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
4SRB
stationary
RICE
using
NSCR,
you
must
comply
with
the
formaldehyde
percentage
emission
limitation.
If
you
use
some
means
other
than
NSCR,
you
must
comply
with
the
alternative
emission
limitation
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
As
mentioned
earlier,
we
know
of
no
other
emission
control
technology
other
than
oxidation
catalyst
and
NSCR
systems
which
can
be
used
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
stationary
RICE.
However,
we
would
like
to
promote
the
development
and
eventual
use
of
alternative
emission
control
technologies
to
reduce
HAP
emissions,
and
we
believe
alternative
emission
limitations
written
as
formaldehyde
concentration
limits
will
serve
to
do
so.
For
the
alternative
emission
limitation,
we
propose
to
use
formaldehyde
concentration
as
a
surrogate
for
all
HAP.
Formaldehyde
is
the
hazardous
air
pollutant
emitted
in
the
highest
concentrations
from
stationary
RICE.
In
addition,
the
emission
data
show
that
formaldehyde
emission
levels
and
other
HAP
emission
levels
are
related,
in
the
sense
that
when
emissions
of
one
are
lowered,
emissions
of
the
other
are
lowered.
That
leads
us
to
conclude
that
emission
control
technologies
which
lead
to
reductions
in
formaldehyde
emissions
will
lead
to
reductions
in
other
HAP
emissions.
The
alternative
emission
limitation
is
in
units
of
parts
per
billion
by
volume
or
parts
per
million
by
volume,
and
all
measurements
are
corrected
to
15
percent
oxygen,
dry
basis,
to
provide
a
common
basis.
A
volume
concentration
was
chosen
for
these
emission
limitations
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
because
it
can
be
measured
directly.
We
utilized
the
same
data
used
to
establish
the
percent
reduction
requirements
to
determine
the
alternative
emission
limitation
for
each
subcategory.
As
with
the
control
efficiencies
discussed
previously,
the
concentrations
for
the
formaldehyde
emission
limitations
are
based
on
the
minimum
level
of
control
achieved
by
the
best
controlled
source
for
each
type
of
engine.
This
approach
takes
into
account
the
variability
of
the
best
performing
engine.
For
the
2SLB
engine
tested
at
CSU,
the
controlled
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77842
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
formaldehyde
emissions
ranged
from
7.5
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
to
17
ppm;
therefore,
we
selected
17
ppm
for
the
emission
limitation.
The
controlled
formaldehyde
emissions
for
the
4SLB
engine
tested
at
CSU
ranged
from
6.4
ppm
to
14
ppm.
We
chose
the
highest
controlled
level
of
14
ppm
for
the
alternative
standard
for
the
4SLB
subcategory.
Similarly,
for
the
CI
engine
tested
at
CSU,
the
controlled
formaldehyde
emissions
ranged
from
130
to
580
parts
per
billion
(
ppb),
and
we,
therefore,
set
an
emission
limitation
of
580
ppb
for
the
CI
subcategory.
For
4SRB
engines,
we
chose
the
best
performing
engine
from
the
industry
testing.
The
controlled
formaldehyde
emissions
for
this
engine
ranged
from
330
to
350
ppb.
In
summary,
the
alternative
emission
limitations
are:
17
ppmvd
for
2SLB
stationary
RICE;
14
ppmvd
for
4SLB
stationary
RICE;
350
ppbvd
for
4SRB
stationary
RICE;
and
580
ppbvd
for
CI
stationary
RICE,
all
corrected
to
15
percent
oxygen.

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

H.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
Continuous
compliance
is
required
at
all
times
except
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
of
your
stationary
RICE.
As
mentioned
above,
we
considered
the
applicability
of
several
compliance
and
monitoring
options
for
stationary
RICE.
The
results
of
these
considerations
lead
us
to
propose
different
compliance
and
monitoring
requirements
for
stationary
RICE
with
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
less
than
5000
brake
horsepower
and
stationary
RICE
with
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
greater
than
or
equal
to
5000
brake
horsepower.
For
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
RICE
with
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
less
than
5000
brake
horsepower
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
CO
emissions
using
an
oxidation
catalyst,
we
considered
several
options:
(
1)
A
CEMS
for
CO;
(
2)
semiannual
stack
testing
for
CO
using
Method
10A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
and
continuous
parametric
monitoring
of
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature;
(
3)
quarterly
stack
testing
with
a
portable
CO
monitor
using
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM)
D6522
 
00,
and
continuous
parametric
monitoring
of
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature;
and
(
4)
initial
stack
testing
for
CO
with
a
portable
CO
monitor
using
ASTM
D6522
 
00
and
continuous
parametric
monitoring
of
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature.
We
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
for
the
first
two
options
excessive,
but
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
associated
with
the
third
option
reasonable.
As
a
result,
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
less
than
5000
brake
horsepower
complying
with
the
CO
percent
reduction
emission
limitation
must
perform
quarterly
stack
testing
for
CO
using
a
portable
CO
monitor.
The
quarterly
testing
will
ensure,
on
an
ongoing
basis,
that
the
source
is
meeting
the
CO
percent
reduction
requirement.
In
addition
to
quarterly
stack
testing
for
CO,
the
stationary
RICE
are
required
to
continuously
monitor
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
catalyst
inlet
temperature.
The
parameters
serve
as
surrogates
of
the
oxidation
catalyst
performance.
The
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
can
indicate
if
the
oxidation
catalyst
is
damaged
or
fouled,
in
which
case,
catalyst
performance
would
decrease.
If
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
deviates
by
more
than
two
inches
of
water
from
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test,
the
oxidation
catalyst
might
be
damaged
or
fouled.
If
you
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77843
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
change
the
oxidation
catalyst
(
i.
e.,
replace
catalyst
elements),
you
must
reestablish
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst.
The
catalyst
inlet
temperature
is
a
requirement
for
proper
performance
of
the
oxidation
catalyst.
In
general,
the
oxidation
catalyst
performance
will
decrease
as
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
decreases.
In
addition,
if
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
is
too
high
(
above
1,250
degrees
Fahrenheit),
it
might
be
an
indication
of
ignition
misfiring,
poisoning,
or
fouling,
which
would
decrease
oxidation
catalyst
performance.
In
addition,
the
oxidation
catalyst
requires
inlet
temperatures
to
be
greater
than
or
equal
to
500
degrees
Fahrenheit
for
the
reduction
of
HAP
emissions.
For
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
greater
than
or
equal
to
5000
brake
horsepower
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
CO
emissions
using
an
oxidation
catalyst,
we
considered
the
same
four
monitoring
options.
For
these
larger
size
stationary
RICE,
however,
we
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
for
a
CO
CEMS
reasonable.
We
consider
the
use
of
CEMS
to
be
the
best
means
of
ensuring
continuous
compliance
with
emission
limitations.
Consequently,
the
large
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
are
required
to
use
a
CO
CEMS.
An
annual
RATA
and
daily
and
periodic
data
quality
checks
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
F,
procedure
1,
are
also
required
to
ensure
that
performance
of
the
CEMS
does
not
deteriorate
over
time.
There
are
no
operating
limitations
for
the
larger
size
stationary
RICE
in
the
subcategories
since
the
CEMS
continuously
measures
CO
and
will
indicate
any
deviation
from
the
emission
limitations.
For
4SRB
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
using
NSCR,
we
also
considered
three
monitoring
options:
(
1)
A
CEMS
for
formaldehyde;
(
2)
stack
testing
for
formaldehyde
using
Test
Method
320
or
323
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
CARB
Method
430,
or
EPA
SW
 
846
Method
0011
with
an
initial
frequency
of
semiannually
which,
following
two
consecutive
stack
tests
demonstrating
compliance,
could
decrease
to
annual
stack
testing
and
continuous
parametric
monitoring;
and
(
3)
initial
stack
testing
for
formaldehyde
using
Test
Method
320
or
323
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
CARB
Method
430,
or
EPA
SW
 
846
Method
0011
and
continuous
parametric
monitoring.
We
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
associated
with
the
first
option
excessive
for
all
4SRB
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
using
NSCR.
For
4SRB
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
more
than
5000
brake
horsepower,
we
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
of
the
second
option
reasonable.
Consequently,
we
chose
that
option
for
the
larger
size
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
For
4SRB
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
ratings
less
than
5000
brake
horsepower,
we
also
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
of
the
second
option
excessive.
We
consider
the
control
and
monitoring
costs
of
the
third
option
reasonable,
and
we
chose
that
option
for
the
smaller
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
For
all
4SRB
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
using
NSCR,
monitoring
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
with
a
CPMS
is
also
required.
The
operating
parameters
serve
as
surrogates
of
the
NSCR
system
performance.
As
with
oxidation
catalyst
systems
for
lean
burn
and
CI
stationary
RICE,
the
pressure
drop
across
an
NSCR
system
is
an
indication
of
catalyst
performance
on
4SRB
stationary
RICE.
The
operating
limitations
are
also
the
same
 
maintain
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
within
two
inches
of
water
from
the
pressure
drop
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test.
If
you
change
your
NSCR
(
i.
e.,
replace
catalyst
elements),
you
must
reestablish
your
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst.
As
for
oxidation
catalyst
control
devices,
the
performance
of
NSCR
is
also
dependent
on
catalyst
inlet
temperature.
Catalyst
inlet
temperature
should
be
maintained
between
750
degrees
Fahrenheit
and
1250
degrees
Fahrenheit
for
proper
activation
of
the
catalyst.
Temperatures
lower
than
that
fail
to
activate
the
catalyst
to
its
full
potential,
while
temperatures
higher
than
that
can
sinter
and
damage
the
active
sites
of
the
catalyst.
In
addition,
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
is
also
an
indication
of
NSCR
performance.
If
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
is
more
than
5
percent
different
from
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test,
that
might
be
an
indication
that
the
NSCR
is
being
damaged
or
fouled.
In
that
case,
catalyst
performance
would
decrease,
lowering
HAP
reductions.
For
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
exhaust
of
the
stationary
RICE,
we
also
considered
requiring
a
CEMS.
However,
we
consider
the
costs
of
a
formaldehyde
CEMS
to
be
excessive.
A
reasonable
alternative
to
a
formaldehyde
CEMS,
however,
is
a
CPMS
(
supplemented
by
periodic
compliance
tests).
Hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions
from
stationary
RICE
correlate
with
operating
load;
HAP
emissions
increase
as
load
decreases.
As
a
result,
if
a
stationary
RICE
operates
at
loads
greater
than
that
at
which
compliance
has
been
demonstrated
through
a
performance
test,
there
is
a
reasonable
assurance
that
the
stationary
RICE
remains
in
compliance.
An
alternative
to
monitoring
operating
load
is
monitoring
the
stationary
RICE's
fuel
flow
rate.
Fuel
flow
rate
is
an
indicator
of
operating
load.
As
a
result,
we
propose
that
stationary
RICE
which
comply
with
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
monitor
continuously
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
as
operating
limitations.
The
intention
is
to
measure
formaldehyde
at
the
lowest
load
at
which
the
stationary
RICE
will
be
operated
to
establish
compliance
at
that
load
level.
By
monitoring
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate,
sources
can
ensure
that
they
do
not
operate
at
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
conditions
(
within
5
percent)
below
which
compliance
has
not
been
demonstrated.
In
addition,
sources
complying
with
the
requirement
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
are
required
to
conduct
semiannual
performance
tests.
Semiannual
performance
testing
will
ensure,
on
an
ongoing
basis,
that
the
source
is
meeting
the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit.
To
reduce
the
cost
burden
of
performance
testing,
sources
that
show
compliance
for
two
successive
performance
tests
may
reduce
performance
testing
frequency.
We
believe
that
a
reduction
to
one
performance
test
per
year
will
provide
sufficient
assurance
of
stationary
RICE
performance
while
reducing
the
performance
testing
costs
for
the
affected
source.
However,
if
a
subsequent
annual
performance
test
indicates
a
deviation
from
the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit,
the
source
must
resume
semiannual
performance
testing.
The
source
must
include
a
notification
to
the
Administrator
in
their
semiannual
compliance
report
stating
that
they
will
be
reducing
the
frequency
of
performance
testing.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77844
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
I.
What
Monitoring
and
Testing
Methods
are
Available
to
Measure
These
Low
Concentrations
of
CO
and
Formaldehyde?

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

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

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77845
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Are
the
Air
Quality
Impacts?

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

B.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?

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

C.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?

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

TABLE
1.
 
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
OF
PROPOSED
RICE
RULE
ON
AFFECTED
MARKET
SECTORS
Market
sector
Change
in
price
(%)
Change
in
market
output
(%)
Total
social
cost
(
millions
of
1998$)

Fuel
Markets:
a
Petroleum
.............................................................................................................................
0.005
¥
0.001
¥
6.0
Natural
Gas
..........................................................................................................................
0.101
¥
0.014
¥
35.2
Electricity
..............................................................................................................................
0.022
0.001
3.2
Coal
......................................................................................................................................
0.001
0.001
0.3
Subtotal
.........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
¥
38.3
Sectors
of
Energy
Consumption:
b
Commercial
Sector
...............................................................................................................
........................
........................
¥
68.4
Residential
Sector
................................................................................................................
........................
........................
¥
40.0
Transportation
Sector
...........................................................................................................
........................
........................
¥
16.2
Mining
and
Quarrying
..................................................................................................................
0.020
¥
0.006
¥
21.0
Food
Products
.............................................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.001
¥
5.9
Paper
Products
............................................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.001
¥
5.2
Chemical
Products
.......................................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.002
¥
17.8
Primary
Metals
.............................................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.001
¥
6.7
Fabricated
Metal
Products
...........................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.000
¥
1.8
Nonmetallic
Mineral
Products
......................................................................................................
0.002
¥
0.002
¥
3.5
Construction
Sector
.....................................................................................................................
0.001
¥
0.001
¥
11.1
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77846
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1.
 
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
OF
PROPOSED
RICE
RULE
ON
AFFECTED
MARKET
SECTORS
 
Continued
Market
sector
Change
in
price
(%)
Change
in
market
output
(%)
Total
social
cost
(
millions
of
1998$)

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

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

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

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

B.
Can
We
Achieve
the
Goals
of
the
Rule
in
a
Less
Costly
Manner?
We
have
made
every
effort
in
developing
the
proposal
to
minimize
the
cost
to
the
regulated
community
and
allow
maximum
flexibility
in
compliance
options
consistent
with
our
statutory
obligations.
We
recognize,
however,
that
the
proposal
may
still
require
some
facilities
to
take
costly
steps
to
further
control
emissions
even
though
those
emissions
may
not
result
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77847
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
See
63
FR
18765
 
66
(
April
15,
1998)
(
Pulp
and
Paper
Combustion
Sources
Proposed
NESHAP).
in
exposures
which
could
pose
an
excess
individual
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
one
in
one
million
or
which
exceed
thresholds
determined
to
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
for
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment
from
the
effects
of
hazardous
air
pollutants.
We
are,
therefore,
specifically
soliciting
comment
on
whether
there
are
further
ways
to
structure
the
proposed
rule
to
focus
on
the
facilities
which
pose
significant
risks
and
avoid
the
imposition
of
high
costs
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
Representatives
of
the
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
industry
provided
EPA
with
descriptions
of
three
mechanisms
that
they
believed
could
be
used
to
implement
more
cost­
effective
reductions
in
risk.
The
docket
for
the
proposed
rule
contains
white
papers
prepared
by
industry
that
outline
their
proposed
approaches
(
see
docket
number
OAR
 
2002
 
0059).
These
approaches
could
be
effective
in
focusing
regulatory
controls
on
facilities
that
pose
significant
risks
and
avoiding
the
imposition
of
high
costs
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment,
and
we
are
seeking
public
comment
on
the
utility
of
each
of
these
approaches
with
respect
to
the
proposed
rule.
One
of
the
approaches,
an
applicability
cutoff
for
threshold
pollutants,
would
be
implemented
under
the
authority
of
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4);
the
second
approach,
subcategorization
and
delisting,
would
be
implemented
under
the
authority
of
CAA
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
112(
c)(
9);
and,
the
third
approach
would
involve
the
use
of
a
concentration­
based
applicability
threshold.
We
are
seeking
comment
on
whether
these
approaches
are
legally
justified
and,
if
so,
we
ask
for
information
that
could
be
used
to
support
such
approaches.
The
MACT
program
outlined
in
CAA
section
112(
d)
is
intended
to
reduce
emissions
of
HAP
through
the
application
of
MACT
to
major
sources
of
toxic
air
pollutants.
Section
112(
c)(
9)
of
the
CAA
is
intended
to
allow
EPA
to
avoid
setting
MACT
standards
for
categories
or
subcategories
of
sources
that
pose
less
than
a
specified
level
of
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
proposals
described
here
appropriately
rely
on
these
provisions
of
CAA
section
112.
While
both
approaches
focus
on
assessing
the
inhalation
exposures
of
HAP
emitted
by
a
source,
EPA
specifically
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
and
necessity
of
extending
these
approaches
to
account
for
non­
inhalation
exposures
or
to
account
for
adverse
environmental
impacts.
In
addition
to
the
specific
requests
for
comment
noted
in
this
section,
we
are
also
interested
in
any
information
or
comment
concerning
technical
limitations,
environmental
and
cost
impacts,
compliance
assurance,
legal
rationale,
and
implementation
relevant
to
the
identified
approaches.
We
also
request
comment
on
appropriate
practicable
and
verifiable
methods
to
ensure
that
sources'
emissions
remain
below
levels
that
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
We
will
evaluate
all
comments
before
determining
whether
either
of
the
three
approaches
will
be
included
in
the
final
rule.

1.
Industry
Emissions
and
Potential
Health
Effects
For
the
RICE
source
category,
four
HAP
make
up
the
majority
of
the
total
HAP.
Those
four
HAP
are
methanol,
formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde,
and
acrolein.
In
accordance
with
section
112(
k)
of
the
CAA,
EPA
developed
a
list
of
33
HAP
which
represent
the
greatest
threat
to
public
health
in
the
largest
number
of
urban
areas.
Three
of
the
four
HAP,
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
and
formaldehyde,
are
included
in
the
HAP
listed
for
the
EPA's
Urban
Air
Toxics
Program.
In
November
1998,
EPA
published
``
A
Multimedia
Strategy
for
Priority,
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(
PBT)
Pollutants''.
The
HAP
emitted
by
RICE
facilities
do
not
appear
on
the
published
list
of
PBT
compounds
referenced
in
the
EPA
strategy.
Two
of
the
HAP,
acetaldehyde
and
formaldehyde,
are
considered
to
be
nonthreshold
carcinogens,
and
cancer
potency
values
are
reported
for
them
in
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
Acrolein
and
methanol
are
not
carcinogens,
but
are
considered
to
be
threshold
pollutants,
and
inhalation
reference
concentrations
are
reported
for
them
in
IRIS
and
by
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
CalEPA),
respectively.
To
estimate
the
potential
baseline
risks
posed
by
the
RICE
source
category,
EPA
performed
a
crude
risk
analysis
of
the
RICE
source
category
that
focused
only
on
cancer
risks.
The
results
of
the
analysis
are
based
on
approaches
for
estimating
cancer
incidence
that
carry
significant
assumptions,
uncertainties,
and
limitations.
Based
on
the
assessment,
if
the
proposed
rule
is
implemented
at
all
affected
RICE
facilities,
annual
cancer
incidence
is
estimated
to
be
reduced
on
the
order
of
ten
cases/
year.
Due
to
the
uncertainties
associated
with
the
analysis,
annual
cancer
incidence
could
be
higher
or
lower
than
these
estimates.
(
Details
of
this
assessment
are
available
in
the
docket.)

2.
Applicability
Cutoffs
for
Threshold
Pollutants
Under
Section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA
The
first
approach
is
an
applicability
cutoff
for
threshold
pollutants
that
is
based
on
EPA's
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
standards
for
HAP
which
are
threshold
pollutants.
A
``
threshold
pollutant''
is
one
for
which
there
is
a
concentration
or
dose
below
which
adverse
effects
are
not
expected
to
occur
over
a
lifetime
of
exposure.
For
such
pollutants,
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
EPA
to
consider
the
threshold
level,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
when
establishing
emission
standards.
Specifically,
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
EPA
to
establish
emission
standards
that
are
not
based
upon
the
MACT
specified
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
2)
for
pollutants
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established.
Such
standards
may
be
less
stringent
than
MACT.
Historically,
EPA
has
interpreted
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
allow
categories
of
sources
that
emit
only
threshold
pollutants
to
avoid
further
regulation
if
those
emissions
result
in
ambient
levels
that
do
not
exceed
the
threshold,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
1
A
different
interpretation
would
allow
us
to
exempt
individual
facilities
within
a
source
category
that
meet
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
requirements.
There
are
three
potential
scenarios
under
this
interpretation
of
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
provision.
One
scenario
would
allow
an
exemption
for
individual
facilities
that
emit
only
threshold
pollutants
and
can
demonstrate
that
their
emissions
of
threshold
pollutants
would
not
result
in
air
concentrations
above
the
threshold
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
even
if
the
category
is
otherwise
subject
to
MACT.
A
second
scenario
would
allow
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
provision
to
be
applied
to
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants,
using
the
one
in
a
million
cancer
risk
level
for
decision
making
for
nonthreshold
pollutants.
A
third
scenario
would
allow
a
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
exemption
at
a
facility
that
emits
both
threshold
and
nonthreshold
pollutants.
For
those
emission
points
where
only
threshold
pollutants
are
emitted
and
where
emissions
of
the
threshold
pollutants
would
not
result
in
air
concentrations
above
the
threshold
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77848
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
2
``
Methods
for
Derivation
of
Inhalation
Reference
Concentrations
and
Applications
of
Inhalation
Dosimetry.''
EPA
 
600/
8
 
90
 
066F,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
USEPA,
October
1994.
3
``
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures.
Risk
Assessment
Forum
Technical
Panel,''
EPA/
630/
R
 
00/
002.
USEPA,
August
2000.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nceaww1/
pdfs/
chem
mix/
chem
mix
08
2001.
pdf.
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
those
emission
points
could
be
exempt
from
the
MACT
standards.
The
MACT
standards
would
still
apply
to
nonthreshold
emissions
from
other
emission
points
at
the
source.
For
this
third
scenario,
emission
points
that
emit
a
combination
of
threshold
and
nonthreshold
pollutants
that
are
cocontrolled
by
MACT
would
still
be
subject
to
the
MACT
level
of
control.
However,
any
threshold
HAP
eligible
for
exemption
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
that
are
controlled
by
control
devices
different
from
those
controlling
nonthreshold
HAP
would
be
able
to
use
the
exemption,
and
the
facility
would
still
be
subject
to
the
parts
of
the
standards
that
control
nonthreshold
pollutants
or
that
control
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants.

a.
Estimation
of
Hazard
Quotients
and
Hazard
Indices
Under
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach,
EPA
would
have
to
determine
that
emissions
of
each
of
the
threshold
pollutants
emitted
by
RICE
sources
at
the
facility
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
the
threshold
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
common
approach
for
evaluating
the
potential
hazard
of
a
threshold
air
pollutant
is
to
calculate
a
hazard
quotient
by
dividing
the
pollutant's
inhalation
exposure
concentration
(
often
assumed
to
be
equivalent
to
its
estimated
concentration
in
air
at
a
location
where
people
could
be
exposed)
by
the
pollutant's
inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC).
An
RfC
is
defined
as
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
that,
over
a
lifetime,
likely
would
not
result
in
the
occurrence
of
adverse
health
effects
in
humans,
including
sensitive
individuals.
The
EPA
typically
establishes
an
RfC
by
applying
uncertainty
factors
to
the
critical
toxic
effect
derived
from
the
lowest­
or
no­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
of
a
pollutant.
2
A
hazard
quotient
less
than
one
means
that
the
exposure
concentration
of
the
pollutant
is
less
than
the
RfC,
and,
therefore,
presumed
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
A
hazard
quotient
greater
than
one
means
that
the
exposure
concentration
of
the
pollutant
is
greater
than
the
RfC.
Further,
EPA
guidance
for
assessing
exposures
to
mixtures
of
threshold
pollutants
recommends
calculating
a
hazard
index
by
summing
the
individual
hazard
quotients
for
those
pollutants
in
the
mixture
that
affect
the
same
target
organ
or
system
by
the
same
mechanism.
3
Hazard
index
(
HI)
values
would
be
interpreted
similarly
to
hazard
quotients;
values
below
one
would
generally
be
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects,
and
values
above
one
would
generally
be
cause
for
concern.
For
the
determinations
discussed
herein,
EPA
would
generally
plan
to
use
RfC
values
contained
in
EPA's
toxicology
database,
the
IRIS.
When
a
pollutant
does
not
have
an
approved
RfC
in
IRIS,
or
when
a
pollutant
is
a
carcinogen,
EPA
would
have
to
determine
whether
a
threshold
exists
based
upon
the
availability
of
specific
data
on
the
pollutant's
mode
or
mechanism
of
action,
potentially
using
a
health
threshold
value
from
an
alternative
source,
such
as
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
or
the
CalEPA.
Table
2
of
this
preamble
provides
the
RfC,
as
well
as
unit
risk
estimates,
for
the
HAP
emitted
by
facilities
in
the
RICE
source
category.
A
unit
risk
estimate
is
defined
as
the
upper­
bound
excess
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimated
to
result
from
continuous
exposure
to
an
agent
at
a
concentration
of
1
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
(
µ
g/
m3)
in
air.

TABLE
2.
 
DOSE­
RESPONSE
ASSESSMENT
VALUES
FOR
HAP
REPORTED
EMITTED
BY
THE
RICE
SOURCE
CATEGORY
Chemical
name
CAS
No.
Reference
concentration
a
(
mg/
m3)
Unit
risk
estimate
b
(
1/(
µ
g/
m3))

Acetaldehyde
..............................................
75
 
07
 
0
9.0E
 
03
(
IRIS)
...........................................
2.2E
 
06
(
IRIS)
Acrolein
......................................................
107
 
02
 
8
2.0E
 
05
(
IRIS)
...........................................
Formaldehyde
............................................
50
 
00
 
0
9.8E
 
03
(
ATSDR)
......................................
1.3E
 
05
(
IRIS)
Methanol
.....................................................
67
 
56
 
1
4.0E+
00
(
CAL)
...........................................

a
Reference
Concentration:
An
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
to
the
human
population
(
including
sensitive
subgroups
which
include
children,
asthmatics
and
the
elderly)
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
during
a
lifetime.
It
can
be
derived
from
various
types
of
human
or
animal
data,
with
uncertainty
factors
generally
applied
to
reflect
limitations
of
the
data
used.
b
Unit
Risk
Estimate:
The
upper­
bound
excess
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimated
to
result
from
continuous
exposure
to
an
agent
at
a
concentration
of
1
µ
g/
m3
in
air.
The
interpretation
of
the
Unit
Risk
Estimate
would
be
as
follows:
if
the
Unit
Risk
Estimate
=
1.5
x
10
¥
6
per
µ
g/
m3,
1.5
excess
tumors
are
expected
to
develop
per
1,000,000
people
if
exposed
daily
for
a
lifetime
to
1
microgram
(
µ
g)
of
the
chemical
in
1
cubic
meter
of
air.
Unit
Risk
Estimates
are
considered
upper
bound
estimates,
meaning
they
represent
a
plausible
upper
limit
to
the
true
value.
(
Note
that
this
is
usually
not
a
true
statistical
confidence
limit.)
The
true
risk
is
likely
to
be
less,
but
could
be
greater.
Sources:
IRIS
=
EPA
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
index.
html)
ATSDR
=
U.
S.
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
mrls.
html)
CAL
=
California
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
(
http://
www.
oehha.
ca.
gov/
air/
hot_
spots/
index.
html)
HEAST
=
EPA
Health
Effects
Assessment
Summary
Tables
(#
PB
(=
97
 
921199),
July
1997)

To
establish
an
applicability
cutoff
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
would
need
to
define
ambient
air
exposure
concentration
limits
for
any
threshold
pollutants
involved.
There
are
several
factors
to
consider
when
establishing
such
concentrations.
First,
we
would
need
to
ensure
that
the
concentrations
that
would
be
established
would
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
As
discussed
above,
the
approach
EPA
commonly
uses
when
evaluating
the
potential
hazard
of
a
threshold
air
pollutant
is
to
calculate
the
pollutant's
hazard
quotient,
which
is
the
exposure
concentration
divided
by
the
RfC.
The
EPA's
``
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures''
suggests
that
the
noncancer
health
effects
associated
with
a
mixture
of
pollutants
ideally
are
assessed
by
considering
the
pollutants'
common
mechanisms
of
toxicity
3.
The
guidance
also
suggests,
however,
that
when
exposures
to
mixtures
of
pollutants
are
being
evaluated,
the
risk
assessor
may
calculate
a
HI.
The
recommended
method
is
to
calculate
multiple
hazard
indices
for
each
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77849
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
4
Senate
Debate
on
Conference
Report
(
October
27,
1990),
reprinted
in
``
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,''
Comm.
Print
S.
Prt.
103
 
38
(
1993)
(``
Legis.
Hist.'')
at
868.
5
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
nata.
6
See
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxpro2.
html.
7
``
A
Tiered
Modeling
Approach
for
Assessing
the
Risks
due
to
Sources
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants.''
EPA
 
450/
4
 
92
 
001.
David
E.
Guinnup,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
USEPA,
March
1992.
exposure
route
of
interest,
and
for
a
single
specific
toxic
effect
or
toxicity
to
a
single
target
organ.
The
default
approach
recommended
by
the
guidance
is
to
sum
the
hazard
quotients
for
those
pollutants
that
induce
the
same
toxic
effect
or
affect
the
same
target
organ.
A
mixture
is
then
assessed
by
several
HI,
each
representing
one
toxic
effect
or
target
organ.
The
guidance
notes
that
the
pollutants
included
in
the
HI
calculation
are
any
pollutants
that
show
the
effect
being
assessed,
regardless
of
the
critical
effect
upon
which
the
RfC
is
based.
The
guidance
cautions
that
if
the
target
organ
or
toxic
effect
for
which
the
HI
is
calculated
is
different
from
the
RfC's
critical
effect,
then
the
RfC
for
that
chemical
will
be
an
overestimate,
that
is,
the
resultant
HI
potentially
may
be
overprotective.
Conversely,
since
the
calculation
of
an
HI
does
not
account
for
the
fact
that
the
potency
of
a
mixture
of
HAP
can
be
more
potent
than
the
sum
of
the
individual
HAP
potencies,
an
HI
may
potentially
be
underprotective.

b.
Options
for
Establishing
a
Hazard
Index
Limit
One
consideration
in
establishing
a
hazard
index
limit
is
whether
the
analysis
considers
the
total
ambient
air
concentrations
of
all
the
emitted
HAP
to
which
the
public
is
exposed
4.
There
are
at
least
several
options
for
establishing
a
hazard
index
limit
for
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
analysis
that
reflect,
to
varying
degrees,
public
exposure.
One
option
is
to
allow
the
HI
posed
by
all
threshold
HAP
emitted
from
RICE
sources
at
the
facility
to
be
no
greater
than
one.
This
approach
is
protective
if
no
additional
threshold
HAP
exposures
would
be
anticipated
from
other
sources
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility
or
through
other
routes
of
exposure
(
e.
g.,
through
ingestion).
A
second
option
is
to
adopt
a
default
percentage
approach,
whereby
the
hazard
index
limit
of
the
HAP
emitted
by
the
facility
is
set
at
some
percentage
of
one
(
e.
g.,
20
percent
or
0.2).
This
approach
recognizes
the
fact
that
the
facility
in
question
is
only
one
of
many
sources
of
threshold
HAP
to
which
people
are
typically
exposed
every
day.
Because
noncancer
risk
assessment
is
predicated
on
total
exposure
or
dose,
and
because
risk
assessments
focus
only
on
an
individual
source,
establishing
a
hazard
index
limit
of
0.2
would
account
for
an
assumption
that
20
percent
of
an
individual's
total
exposure
is
from
that
individual
source.
For
the
purposes
of
this
discussion,
we
will
call
all
sources
of
HAP,
other
than
the
facility
in
question,
background
sources.
If
the
facility
is
allowed
to
emit
HAP
such
that
its
own
impacts
could
result
in
HI
values
of
one,
total
exposures
to
threshold
HAP
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility
could
be
substantially
greater
than
one
due
to
background
sources,
and
this
would
not
be
protective
of
public
health,
since
only
HI
values
below
one
are
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
Thus,
setting
the
hazard
index
limit
for
the
facility
at
some
default
percentage
of
one
will
provide
a
buffer
which
would
help
to
ensure
that
total
exposures
to
threshold
HAP
near
the
facility
(
i.
e.,
in
combination
with
exposures
due
to
background
sources)
will
generally
not
exceed
one,
and
can
generally
be
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
using
the
default
percentage
approach
and
on
setting
the
default
hazard
index
limit
at
0.2.
The
EPA
is
also
requesting
comment
on
whether
an
alternative
HI
limit,
in
some
multiple
of
1
would
be
a
more
appropriate
applicability
cutoff.
A
third
option
is
to
use
available
data
(
from
scientific
literature
or
EPA
studies,
for
example)
to
determine
background
concentrations
of
HAP,
possibly
on
a
national
or
regional
basis.
These
data
would
be
used
to
estimate
the
exposures
to
HAP
from
non­
RICE
sources
in
the
vicinity
of
an
individual
facility.
For
example,
the
EPA's
National­
Scale
Air
Toxics
Assessment
(
NATA)
5
and
ATSDR's
Toxicological
Profiles
6
contain
information
about
background
concentrations
of
some
HAP
in
the
atmosphere
and
other
media.
The
combined
exposures
from
RICE
sources
and
from
other
sources
(
as
determined
from
the
literature
or
studies)
would
then
not
be
allowed
to
exceed
a
hazard
index
limit
of
1.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
setting
the
hazard
index
limit
at
1
for
such
an
analysis.
A
fourth
option
is
to
allow
facilities
to
estimate
or
measure
their
own
facility­
specific
background
HAP
concentrations
for
use
in
their
analysis.
With
regard
to
the
third
and
fourth
options,
the
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
these
analyses
could
be
structured.
Specifically,
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
the
analyses
should
take
into
account
background
exposure
levels
from
air,
water,
food
and
soil
encountered
by
the
individuals
exposed
to
RICE
emissions.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
how
such
analyses
should
account
for
potential
increases
in
exposures
due
to
the
use
of
a
new
or
the
increased
use
of
a
previously
emitted
HAP,
or
the
effect
of
other
nearby
sources
that
release
HAP.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
feasibility
and
scientific
validity
of
each
of
these
or
other
approaches.
Finally,
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
should
implement
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
applicability
cutoffs,
including
appropriate
mechanisms
for
applying
cutoffs
to
individual
facilities.
For
example,
would
the
title
V
permit
process
provide
an
appropriate
mechanism?

c.
Tiered
Analytical
Approach
for
Predicting
Exposure
Establishing
that
a
facility
meets
the
cutoffs
established
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
will
necessarily
involve
combining
estimates
of
pollutant
emissions
with
air
dispersion
modeling
to
predict
exposures.
The
EPA
envisions
that
we
would
promote
a
tiered
analytical
approach
for
these
determinations.
A
tiered
analysis
involves
making
successive
refinements
in
modeling
methodologies
and
input
data
to
derive
successively
less
conservative,
more
realistic
estimates
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
air
and
estimates
of
risk.
As
a
first
tier
of
analysis,
EPA
could
develop
a
series
of
simple
look­
up
tables
based
on
the
results
of
air
dispersion
modeling
conducted
using
conservative
input
assumptions.
By
specifying
a
limited
number
of
input
parameters,
such
as
stack
height,
distance
to
property
line,
and
emission
rate,
a
facility
could
use
these
look­
up
tables
to
determine
easily
whether
the
emissions
from
their
sources
might
cause
a
hazard
index
limit
to
be
exceeded.
A
facility
that
does
not
pass
this
initial
conservative
screening
analysis
could
implement
increasingly
more
sitespecific
but
more
resource­
intensive
tiers
of
analysis
using
EPA­
approved
modeling
procedures,
in
an
attempt
to
demonstrate
that
exposure
to
emissions
from
the
facility
does
not
exceed
the
hazard
index
limit.
The
EPA's
guidance
could
provide
the
basis
for
conducting
such
a
tiered
analysis.
7
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
methods
for
constructing
and
implementing
a
tiered
analytical
approach
for
determining
applicability
of
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
criterion
to
specific
RICE
sources.
It
is
also
possible
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
13
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77850
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
8``
Draft
Revised
Guidelines
for
Carcinogen
Risk
Assessment.''
NCEA
 
F
 
0644.
USEPA,
Risk
Assessment
Forum,
July
1999.
pp
3
 
9ff.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
raf/
pdfs/
cancer_
gls.
pdf.
that
ambient
monitoring
data
could
be
used
to
supplement
or
supplant
the
tiered
modeling
approach
described
above.
It
is
envisioned
that
the
appropriate
monitoring
to
support
such
a
determination
could
be
extensive.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriate
use
of
monitoring
in
the
determinations
described
above.

d.
Accounting
for
Dose­
Response
Relationships
In
the
past,
EPA
routinely
treated
carcinogens
as
nonthreshold
pollutants.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
advances
in
risk
assessment
science
and
policy
may
affect
the
way
EPA
differentiates
between
threshold
and
nonthreshold
HAP.
The
EPA's
draft
Guidelines
for
Carcinogen
Risk
Assessment
8
suggest
that
carcinogens
be
assigned
non­
linear
dose­
response
relationships
where
data
warrant.
Moreover,
it
is
possible
that
dose­
response
curves
for
some
pollutants
may
reach
zero
risk
at
a
dose
greater
than
zero,
creating
a
threshold
for
carcinogenic
effects.
It
is
possible
that
future
evaluations
of
the
carcinogens
emitted
by
this
source
category
would
determine
that
one
or
more
of
the
carcinogens
in
the
category
is
a
threshold
carcinogen
or
is
a
carcinogen
that
exhibits
a
non­
linear
dose­
response
relationship
but
does
not
have
a
threshold.
The
dose­
response
assessments
for
formaldehyde
and
acetaldehyde
are
currently
undergoing
revision
by
the
EPA.
As
part
of
this
revision
effort,
EPA
is
evaluating
formaldehyde
and
acetaldehyde
as
potential
non­
linear
carcinogens.
The
revised
dose­
response
assessments
will
be
subject
to
review
by
the
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board,
followed
by
full
consensus
review,
before
adoption
into
the
EPA
Integrated
Risk
Information
System.
At
this
time,
EPA
estimates
that
the
consensus
review
will
be
completed
by
the
end
of
2003.
The
revision
of
the
dose­
response
assessments
could
affect
the
potency
factors
of
these
HAP,
as
well
as
their
status
as
threshold
or
nonthreshold
pollutants.
At
this
time,
the
outcome
is
not
known.
In
addition
to
the
current
reassessment
by
EPA,
there
have
been
several
reassessments
of
the
toxicity
and
carcinogenicity
of
formaldehyde
in
recent
years,
including
work
by
the
World
Health
Organization
and
the
Canadian
Ministry
of
Health.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
should
consider
the
state
of
the
science
as
it
relates
to
the
treatment
of
threshold
pollutants
when
making
determinations
under
section
112(
d)(
4).
In
addition,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
there
is
a
level
of
emissions
of
a
nonthreshold
carcinogenic
HAP
(
e.
g.,
benzene,
methylene
chloride)
at
which
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
a
facility
to
use
the
approaches
discussed
in
this
section.
If
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
were
adopted,
the
proposed
rulemaking
would
likely
indicate
that
the
requirements
of
the
rule
do
not
apply
to
any
source
that
demonstrates,
based
on
a
tiered
approach
that
includes
EPAapproved
modeling
of
the
affected
source's
emissions,
that
the
anticipated
HAP
exposures
do
not
exceed
the
specified
hazard
index
limit.

3.
Subcategory
Delisting
Under
Section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
of
the
CAA
The
EPA
is
authorized
to
establish
categories
and
subcategories
of
sources,
as
appropriate,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
c)(
1),
in
order
to
facilitate
the
development
of
MACT
standards
consistent
with
section
112
of
the
CAA.
Further,
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
allows
EPA
to
delete
a
category
(
or
subcategory)
from
the
list
of
major
sources
for
which
MACT
standards
are
to
be
developed
when
the
following
can
be
demonstrated:
(
1)
In
the
case
of
carcinogenic
pollutants,
that
``
no
source
in
the
category
*
*
*
emits
(
carcinogenic)
air
pollutants
in
quantities
which
may
cause
a
lifetime
risk
of
cancer
greater
than
1
in
1
million
to
the
individual
in
the
population
who
is
most
exposed
to
emissions
of
such
pollutants
from
the
source'';
(
2)
in
the
case
of
pollutants
that
cause
adverse
noncancer
health
effects,
that
``
emissions
from
no
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
*
*
*
exceed
a
level
which
is
adequate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety'';
and
(
3)
in
the
case
of
pollutants
that
cause
adverse
environmental
effects,
that
``
no
adverse
environmental
effect
will
result
from
emissions
from
any
source.''
Given
these
authorities
and
the
suggestions
from
the
white
paper
prepared
by
industry
representatives
(
see
docket
number
OAR
 
2002
 
0059),
EPA
is
considering
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
establish
a
subcategory
of
facilities
within
the
larger
RICE
category
that
would
meet
the
risk­
based
criteria
for
delisting.
Such
criteria
would
likely
include
the
same
requirements
as
described
previously
for
the
second
scenario
under
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach,
whereby
a
facility
would
be
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
if
its
emissions
of
threshold
pollutants
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
the
HI
limits
and
if
its
emissions
of
nonthreshold
pollutants
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
a
cancer
risk
level
of
10
¥
6.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
what
an
appropriate
HI
limit
would
be
for
a
determination
that
a
facility
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory.
Since
each
facility
in
such
a
subcategory
would
be
a
low­
risk
facility
(
i.
e.,
if
each
met
these
criteria),
the
subcategory
could
be
delisted
in
accordance
with
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9),
thereby
limiting
the
costs
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
to
only
those
facilities
that
do
not
qualify
for
subcategorization
and
delisting.
The
EPA
estimates
that
the
maximum
potential
effect
of
this
approach
would
be
the
same
as
that
of
applying
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
that
allows
exemption
of
facilities
emitting
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants
if
exemption
criteria
are
met.
Facilities
seeking
to
be
included
in
the
delisted
subcategory
would
be
responsible
for
providing
all
data
required
to
determine
whether
they
are
eligible
for
inclusion.
Facilities
that
could
not
demonstrate
that
they
are
eligible
to
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
would
be
subject
to
MACT
and
possible
future
residual
risk
standards.
The
EPA
solicits
comment
on
implementing
a
risk­
based
approach
for
establishing
subcategories
of
RICE
facilities.
Establishing
that
a
facility
qualifies
for
the
low­
risk
subcategory
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
will
necessarily
involve
combining
estimates
of
pollutant
emissions
with
air
dispersion
modeling
to
predict
exposures.
The
EPA
envisions
that
we
would
employ
the
same
tiered
analytical
approach
described
earlier
in
the
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
discussion
for
these
determinations.
One
concern
that
EPA
has
with
respect
to
the
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
approach
is
the
effect
that
it
could
have
on
the
MACT
floors.
If
many
of
the
facilities
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
are
well­
controlled,
that
could
make
the
MACT
floor
less
stringent
for
the
remaining
facilities.
One
approach
that
has
been
suggested
to
mitigate
this
effect
would
be
to
establish
the
MACT
floor
now
based
on
controls
in
place
for
the
entire
category
and
to
allow
facilities
to
become
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
in
the
future,
after
the
MACT
standards
are
established.
This
would
allow
low
risk
facilities
to
use
the
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
exemption
without
affecting
the
MACT
floor
calculation.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
suggested
approach.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77851
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Another
approach
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
would
be
to
define
a
subcategory
of
facilities
within
the
RICE
source
category
based
upon
technological
differences,
such
as
differences
in
production
rate,
emission
vent
flow
rates,
overall
facility
size,
emissions
characteristics,
processes,
or
air
pollution
control
device
viability.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
might
establish
RICE
subcategories
based
on
these,
or
other,
source
characteristics.
If
it
could
then
be
determined
that
each
source
in
this
technologically­
defined
subcategory
presents
a
low
risk
to
the
surrounding
community,
the
subcategory
could
then
be
delisted
in
accordance
with
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9).
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
concept
of
identifying
technologically­
based
subcategories
that
may
include
only
low­
risk
facilities
within
the
RICE
source
category.
If
the
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
approach
were
adopted,
the
proposed
rulemaking
would
likely
indicate
that
the
rule
does
not
apply
to
any
source
that
demonstrates
that
it
belongs
in
a
subcategory
which
has
been
delisted
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9).

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

VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
we
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
is
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
it
could
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
over
$
100
million.
Consequently,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.
Any
written
comments
from
OMB
and
written
EPA
responses
are
available
in
the
docket.
As
stipulated
in
Executive
Order
12866,
in
deciding
how
or
whether
to
regulate,
EPA
is
required
to
assess
all
costs
and
benefits
of
available
regulatory
alternatives,
including
the
alternative
of
not
regulating.
To
this
end,
EPA
prepared
a
detailed
benefit­
cost
analysis
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines
NESHAP,''
which
is
contained
in
the
docket.
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
benefitcost
analysis.
It
is
estimated
that
5
years
after
implementation
of
the
proposed
rule,
HAP
will
be
reduced
by
5,000
tons
per
year
due
to
reductions
in
formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
methanol,
and
several
other
HAP
from
some
existing
and
all
new
internal
combustion
engines.
Formaldehyde
and
acetaldehyde
have
been
classified
as
``
probable
human
carcinogens''
based
on
scientific
studies
conducted
over
the
past
20
years.
These
studies
have
determined
a
relationship
between
exposure
to
these
HAP
and
the
onset
of
cancer;
however,
there
are
some
questions
remaining
on
how
cancers
that
may
result
from
exposure
to
these
HAP
can
be
quantified
in
terms
of
dollars.
Acrolein,
methanol
and
the
other
HAP
emitted
from
RICE
sources
are
not
considered
carcinogenic
but
have
been
reported
to
cause
several
noncarcinogenic
effects.
The
control
technology
to
reduce
the
level
of
HAP
emitted
from
RICE
are
also
expected
to
reduce
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants,
primarily
CO,
NOX,
and
PM,
however,
VOC
are
also
reduced
to
a
minor
extent.
It
is
estimated
that
CO
emissions
reductions
totals
approximately
234,400
tons/
year,
NOX
emissions
reductions
totals
approximately
167,900
tons/
year,
and
PM
emissions
reductions
totals
approximately
3,700
tons
per
year.
These
reductions
occur
from
new
and
existing
engines
in
operation
5
years
after
the
implementation
of
the
rule
as
proposed
and
are
expected
to
continue
throughout
the
life
of
the
engines
and
continue
to
grow
as
new
engines
(
that
otherwise
would
not
be
controlled)
are
purchased
for
operation.
Human
health
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
CO
include
cardiovascular
system
and
CNS
effects,
which
are
directly
related
to
reduced
oxygen
content
of
blood
and
which
can
result
in
modification
of
visual
perception,
hearing,
motor
and
sensorimotor
performance,
vigilance,
and
cognitive
ability.
Emissions
of
NOX
can
transform
into
PM
in
the
atmosphere,
which
produces
a
variety
of
health
and
welfare
effects.
Human
health
effects
associated
with
NOX
include
respiratory
problems,
such
as
chronic
bronchitis,
asthma,
or
even
death
from
complications.
Welfare
effects
from
direct
NOX
exposure
include
agricultural
and
forestry
damage
and
acidification
of
estuaries
through
rain
deposition
of
nitrogen;
while
fine
PM
particles
created
from
NOX
can
reduce
visibility
in
national
parks
and
other
natural
and
urban
areas.
At
the
present
time,
the
Agency
cannot
provide
a
monetary
estimate
for
the
benefits
associated
with
the
reductions
in
CO.
For
NOX
and
PM,
the
Agency
has
conducted
several
analyses
recently
that
estimate
the
monetized
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77852
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
benefits
of
these
pollutant
reductions,
including:
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA)
of
the
PM/
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
1997),
the
NOX
State
Implementation
Plan
Call
(
1998),
the
section
126
RIA
(
1999),
a
study
conducted
for
section
812(
b)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
(
1990),
the
Tier
2/
Gasoline
Sulfur
Standards
(
1999),
and
the
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
Standards
(
2000).
On
September
26,
2002,
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
(
NAS)
released
a
report
on
its
review
of
the
Agency's
methodology
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
measures
taken
to
reduce
air
pollution.
The
report
focused
on
EPA's
approach
for
estimating
the
health
benefits
of
regulations
designed
to
reduce
concentrations
of
airborne
particulate
matter
(
PM).
In
its
report,
the
NAS
said
that
EPA
has
generally
used
a
reasonable
framework
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
PM­
control
measures.
It
recommended,
however,
that
the
Agency
take
a
number
of
steps
to
improve
its
benefits
analysis.
In
particular,
the
NAS
stated
that
the
Agency
should:
(
1)
Include
benefits
estimates
for
a
range
of
regulatory
options;
(
2)
Estimate
benefits
for
intervals,
such
as
every
5
years,
rather
than
a
single
year;
(
3)
Clearly
state
the
project
baseline
statistics
used
in
estimating
health
benefits,
including
those
for
air
emissions,
air
quality,
and
health
outcomes;
(
4)
Examine
whether
implementation
of
proposed
regulations
might
cause
unintended
impacts
on
human
health
or
the
environment;
(
5)
When
appropriate,
use
data
from
non­
U.
S.
studies
to
broaden
age
ranges
to
which
current
estimates
apply
and
to
include
more
types
of
relevant
health
outcomes;
(
6)
Begin
to
move
the
assessment
of
uncertainties
from
its
ancillary
analyses
into
its
primary
analyses
by
conducting
probabilistic,
multiple­
source
uncertainty
analyses.
This
assessment
should
be
based
on
available
data
and
expert
judgment.
Although
the
NAS
made
a
number
of
recommendations
for
improvement
in
EPA's
approach,
it
found
that
the
studies
selected
by
EPA
for
use
in
its
benefits
analysis
were
generally
reasonable
choices.
In
particular,
the
NAS
agreed
with
EPA's
decision
to
use
cohort
studies
to
derive
benefits
estimates.
It
also
concluded
that
the
Agency's
selection
of
the
American
Cancer
Society
(
ACS)
study
for
the
evaluation
of
PM­
related
premature
mortality
was
reasonable,
although
it
noted
the
publication
of
new
cohort
studies
that
should
be
evaluated
by
the
Agency.
Several
of
the
NAS
recommendations
addressed
the
issue
of
uncertainty
and
how
the
Agency
can
better
analyze
and
communicate
the
uncertainties
associated
with
its
benefits
assessments.
In
particular,
the
Committee
expressed
concern
about
the
Agency's
reliance
on
a
single
value
from
its
analysis
and
suggested
that
EPA
develop
a
probabilistic
approach
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
proposed
regulatory
actions.
The
Agency
agrees
with
this
suggestion
and
is
working
to
develop
such
an
approach
for
use
in
future
rulemakings.
In
the
RIA
for
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
has
used
an
interim
approach
that
shows
the
impact
of
several
important
alternative
assumptions
about
the
estimation
and
valuation
of
reductions
in
premature
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis.
This
approach,
which
was
developed
in
the
context
of
the
Agency's
Clear
Skies
analysis,
provides
an
alternative
estimate
of
health
benefits
using
the
time
series
studies
in
place
of
cohort
studies,
as
well
as
alternative
valuation
methods
for
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis
risk
reductions.
For
today's
action,
we
conducted
an
air
quality
assessment
to
determine
the
change
in
concentrations
of
PM
that
results
from
reductions
of
NOX
and
direct
emissions
of
PM
at
all
sources
of
RICE.
Because
we
are
unable
to
identify
the
location
of
all
affected
existing
and
new
sources
of
RICE,
our
analysis
is
conducted
in
two
phases.
In
the
first
phase,
we
conduct
air
quality
analysis
assuming
a
50
percent
reduction
of
1996­
levels
of
NOX
emissions
and
a
100
percent
reduction
of
PM10
emissions
for
all
RICE
sources
throughout
the
country.
The
results
of
this
analysis
serve
as
a
reasonable
approximation
of
air
quality
changes
to
transfer
to
the
proposed
rule's
emissions
reductions
at
affected
sources.
The
results
of
the
air
quality
assessment
served
as
input
to
a
model
that
estimates
the
benefits
related
to
the
health
effects
listed
above.
In
the
second
phase
of
our
analysis,
the
value
of
the
benefits
per
ton
of
NOX
and
PM
reduced
(
e.
g.,
$
benefit/
ton
reduced)
associated
with
the
air
quality
scenarios
are
then
applied
to
the
tons
of
NOX
and
PM
emissions
expected
to
be
reduced
by
the
proposed
rule.
We
also
used
the
benefit
transfer
method
to
value
improvements
in
ozone
based
on
the
transfer
of
benefit
values
from
an
analysis
of
the
1998
NOX
SIP
call.
In
addition,
although
the
benefits
of
the
welfare
effects
of
NOX
are
monetized
in
other
Agency
analyses,
we
chose
not
to
do
an
analysis
of
the
improvements
in
welfare
effects
that
will
result
from
the
proposed
rule.
Alternatively,
we
could
transfer
the
estimates
of
welfare
benefits
from
these
other
studies
to
this
analysis,
but
chose
not
to
do
so
because
these
studies
with
estimated
welfare
benefits
differ
in
the
source
and
location
of
emissions
and
associated
impacted
populations.
Every
benefit­
cost
analysis
examining
the
potential
effects
of
a
change
in
environmental
protection
requirements
is
limited
to
some
extent
by
data
gaps,
limitations
in
model
capabilities
(
such
as
geographic
coverage),
and
uncertainties
in
the
underlying
scientific
and
economic
studies
used
to
configure
the
benefit
and
cost
models.
Deficiencies
in
the
scientific
literature
often
result
in
the
inability
to
estimate
changes
in
health
and
environmental
effects,
such
as
potential
increases
in
premature
mortality
associated
with
increased
exposure
to
carbon
monoxide.
Deficiencies
in
the
economics
literature
often
result
in
the
inability
to
assign
economic
values
even
to
those
health
and
environmental
outcomes
which
can
be
quantified.
While
these
general
uncertainties
in
the
underlying
scientific
and
economics
literatures
are
discussed
in
detail
in
the
RIA
and
its
supporting
documents
and
references,
the
key
uncertainties
which
have
a
bearing
on
the
results
of
the
benefit­
cost
analysis
of
today's
action
are
the
following:
(
1)
The
exclusion
of
potentially
significant
benefit
categories
(
e.
g.,
health
and
ecological
benefits
of
reduction
in
hazardous
air
pollutants
emissions);
(
2)
Errors
in
measurement
and
projection
for
variables
such
as
population
growth;
(
3)
Uncertainties
in
the
estimation
of
future
year
emissions
inventories
and
air
quality;
(
4)
Uncertainties
associated
with
the
extrapolation
of
air
quality
monitoring
data
to
some
unmonitored
areas
required
to
better
capture
the
effects
of
the
standards
on
the
affected
population;
(
5)
Variability
in
the
estimated
relationships
of
health
and
welfare
effects
to
changes
in
pollutant
concentrations;
and
(
6)
Uncertainties
associated
with
the
benefit
transfer
approach.
Despite
these
uncertainties,
we
believe
the
benefit­
cost
analysis
provides
a
reasonable
indication
of
the
expected
economic
benefits
of
the
RICE
NESHAP
under
two
different
sets
of
assumptions.
We
have
used
two
approaches
(
Base
and
Alternative
Estimates)
to
provide
benefits
in
health
effects
and
in
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77853
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
monetary
terms.
They
differ
in
the
method
used
to
estimate
and
value
reduced
incidences
of
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis,
which
is
explained
in
detail
in
the
RIA.
While
there
is
a
substantial
difference
in
the
specific
estimates,
both
approaches
show
that
the
RICE
MACT
may
provide
benefits
to
public
health,
whether
expressed
as
health
improvements
or
as
economic
benefits.
These
include
prolonging
lives,
reducing
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis
and
hospital
admissions,
and
reducing
thousands
of
cases
in
other
indicators
of
adverse
health
effects,
such
as
work
loss
days,
restricted
activity
days,
and
days
with
asthma
attacks.
In
addition,
there
are
a
number
of
health
and
environmental
effects
which
we
were
unable
to
quantify
or
monetize.
These
effects,
denoted
by
``
B''
are
additive
to
both
the
Base
and
Alternative
estimates
of
benefits.
Results
also
reflect
the
use
of
two
different
discount
rates
for
the
valuation
of
reduced
incidences
of
mortality;
a
3
percent
rate
which
is
recommended
by
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analyses
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2000a),
and
7
percent
which
is
recommended
by
OMB
Circular
A
 
94
(
OMB,
1992).
More
specifically,
the
Base
Estimate
of
benefits
reflects
the
use
of
peerreviewed
methodologies
developed
for
earlier
risk
and
benefit­
cost
assessments
related
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
such
as
the
regulatory
assessments
of
the
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
and
Tier
II
rules
and
the
section
812
Report
to
Congress.
The
Alternative
Estimate
explores
important
aspects
of
the
key
elements
underlying
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
NOX
emissions,
specifically
focusing
on
estimation
and
valuation
of
mortality
risk
reduction
and
valuation
of
chronic
bronchitis.
The
Alternative
Estimate
of
mortality
reduction
relies
on
recent
scientific
studies
finding
an
association
between
increased
mortality
and
shortterm
exposure
to
particulate
matter
over
days
to
weeks,
while
the
Base
Estimate
relies
on
a
recent
reanalysis
of
earlier
studies
that
associate
long­
term
exposure
to
fine
particles
with
increased
mortality.
The
Alternative
Estimate
differs
in
the
following
ways:
It
explicitly
omits
any
impact
of
long­
term
exposure
on
premature
mortality,
it
uses
different
data
on
valuation
and
makes
adjustments
relating
to
the
health
status
and
potential
longevity
of
the
populations
most
likely
affected
by
PM,
it
also
uses
a
cost­
of­
illness
method
to
value
reductions
in
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis
while
the
Base
Estimate
is
based
on
individual's
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
to
avoid
a
case
of
chronic
bronchitis.
In
addition,
one
key
area
of
uncertainty
is
the
value
of
a
statistical
life
(
VSL)
for
risk
reductions
in
mortality,
which
is
also
the
category
of
benefits
that
accounts
for
a
large
portion
of
the
total
benefit
estimate.
The
adoption
of
a
value
for
the
projected
reduction
in
the
risk
of
premature
mortality
is
the
subject
of
continuing
discussion
within
the
economic
and
public
policy
analysis
community.
There
is
general
agreement
that
the
value
to
an
individual
of
a
reduction
in
mortality
risk
can
vary
based
on
several
factors,
including
the
age
of
the
individual,
the
type
of
risk,
the
level
of
control
the
individual
has
over
the
risk,
the
individual's
attitude
toward
risk,
and
the
health
status
of
the
individual.
The
Environmental
Economics
Advisory
Committee
(
EEAC)
of
the
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB)
recently
issued
an
advisory
report
which
states
that
``
the
theoretically
appropriate
method
is
to
calculate
WTP
for
individuals
whose
ages
correspond
to
those
of
the
affected
population,
and
that
it
is
preferable
to
base
these
calculations
on
empirical
estimates
of
WTP
by
age''
(
EPA
 
SAB
 
EEAC
 
00
 
013).
In
developing
our
Base
Estimate
of
the
benefits
of
premature
mortality
reductions,
we
have
appropriately
discounted
over
the
lag
period
between
exposure
and
premature
mortality.
However,
the
empirical
basis
for
adjusting
the
current
$
6
million
VSL
for
other
factors
does
not
yet
justify
including
these
in
our
Base
Estimate.
A
discussion
of
these
factors
is
contained
in
the
RIA
and
supporting
documents.
The
EPA
recognizes
the
need
for
additional
research
by
the
scientific
community
to
develop
additional
empirical
support
for
adjustments
to
VSL
for
the
factors
mentioned
above.
Furthermore,
EPA
prefers
not
to
draw
distinctions
in
the
monetary
value
assigned
to
the
lives
saved
even
if
they
differ
in
age,
health
status,
socioeconomic
status,
gender
or
other
characteristic
of
the
adult
population.
However,
adjustments
to
VSL
for
age
and
life
expectancy
are
explored
in
the
Alternative
Estimate.

Given
its
basis
in
methods
approved
by
the
SAB,
we
employed
the
approach
used
for
the
benefit
analysis
of
the
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
standards
conducted
in
2000
to
the
RICE
NESHAP
discussed
in
this
preamble.
A
full
discussion
of
considerations
made
in
our
presentation
of
benefits
is
summarized
in
the
preamble
of
the
Final
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
standards
issued
in
December
2000,
and
in
all
supporting
documentation
and
analyses
of
the
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Program,
and
in
the
RIA
for
the
proposed
rule.

In
addition
to
the
presentation
of
quantified
health
benefits,
our
estimate
also
includes
a
``
B''
to
represent
those
additional
health
and
environmental
benefits
which
could
not
be
expressed
in
quantitative
incidence
and/
or
economic
value
terms.
A
full
appreciation
of
the
overall
economic
consequences
of
the
RICE
NESHAP
requires
consideration
of
all
benefits
and
costs
expected
to
result
from
the
new
standards,
not
just
those
benefits
and
costs
which
could
be
expressed
here
in
dollar
terms.
A
full
listing
of
the
benefit
categories
that
could
not
be
quantified
or
monetized
in
our
estimate
are
provided
in
Table
3
of
this
preamble.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77854
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
3.
 
UNQUANTIFIED
BENEFIT
CATEGORIES
FROM
RICE
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
Unquantified
benefit
categories
associated
with
HAP
Unquantified
benefit
categories
associated
with
ozone
Unquantified
benefit
categories
associated
with
PM
Health
Categories
..........................
Carcinogenicity
mortality.
Genotoxicity
mortality.
Non­
Cancer
lethality.
Pulmonary
function
decrement.
Dermal
irritation.
Eye
irritation.
Neurotoxicity.
Immunotoxicity.
Pulmonary
function
decrement.
Liver
damage.
Gastrointestinal
toxicity.
Kidney
damage.
Cardiovascular
impairment.
Hematopoietic
(
Blood
disorders).
Reproductive/
Developmental
toxicity
Airway
responsiveness.
Pulmonary
inflammation.
Increased
susceptibility
to
respiratory
infection.
Acute
inflammation
and
respiratory
cell
damage.
Chronic
respiratory
damage/
Premature
aging
of
lungs.
Emergency
room
visits
for
asthma
Changes
in
pulmonary
function.
Morphological
changes.
Altered
host
defense
mechanisms
Cancer.
Other
chronic
respiratory
disease.
Emergency
room
visits
for
asthma
Lower
and
upper
respiratory
symptoms.
Acute
bronchitis.
Shortness
of
breath.

Welfare
Categories
........................
Corrosion/
deterioration.
Unpleasant
odors.
Transportation
safety
concerns.
Yield
reductions/
Foliar
injury.
Biomass
decrease.
Species
richness
decline.
Species
diversity
decline.
Community
size
decrease.
Organism
lifespan
decrease.
Trophic
web
shortening.
Ecosystem
and
vegetation
effects
in
Class
I
areas
(
e.
g.,
national
parks).
Damage
to
urban
ornamentals
(
e.
g.,
grass,
flowers,
shrubs,
and
trees
in
urban
areas).
Commercial
field
crops.
Fruit
and
vegetable
crops
Reduced
yields
of
tree
seedlings,
commercial
and
non­
commercial
forests.
Damage
to
ecosystems.
Materials
damage.
Materials
damage.
Damage
to
ecosystems
(
e.
g.,
acid
sulfate
deposition).
Nitrates
in
drinking
water.

Our
Base
Estimate
of
benefits
totals
approximately
$
280
million
when
using
a
3
percent
interest
rate
(
or
approximately
$
265
million
when
using
a
7
percent
interest
rate).
The
Alternative
Estimate
totals
approximately
$
40
million
when
using
a
3
percent
interest
rate
(
or
approximately
$
45
million
when
using
a
7
percent
interest
rate).
Benefit­
cost
comparison
(
or
net
benefits)
is
another
tool
used
to
evaluate
the
reallocation
of
society's
resources
needed
to
address
the
pollution
externality
created
by
the
operation
of
RICE
units.
The
additional
costs
of
internalizing
the
pollution
produced
at
major
sources
of
emissions
from
RICE
units
is
compared
to
the
improvement
in
society's
well­
being
from
a
cleaner
and
healthier
environment.
Comparing
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
to
the
costs
imposed
by
alternative
ways
to
control
emissions
optimally
identifies
a
strategy
that
results
in
the
highest
net
benefit
to
society.
In
the
case
of
the
proposed
RICE
NESHAP,
we
are
proposing
only
one
option,
the
minimal
level
of
control
mandated
by
the
Clean
Air
Act,
or
the
MACT
floor.
Table
4
of
this
preamble
presents
a
summary
of
the
costs,
emission
reductions,
and
quantifiable
benefits
by
engine
type.
Table
5
of
this
preamble
presents
a
summary
of
net
benefits.
Based
on
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
the
predicted
change
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industries,
the
estimated
social
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
$
254
million
(
1998$)
as
are
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.
Unfortunately,
the
air
benefits
characterized
in
this
analysis
are
limited
by
the
data
available
on
the
numerous
health
and
welfare
categories
for
the
affected
pollutants
and
by
the
lack
of
approved
methods
for
quantifying
effects.
Using
the
Base
Estimate
of
benefits,
the
portion
of
total
benefits
associated
with
NOX
and
PM
reductions
exceed
the
estimated
total
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
by
$
25
million
+
B
when
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
$
10
million
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).
However,
using
the
more
conservative
Alternative
Estimate
of
benefits,
net
benefits
are
negative.
Under
the
Alternative
Estimate,
net
benefits
total
¥
$
215
million
+
B
under
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
¥
$
210
million
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).
Approximately
90
percent
of
the
total
benefits
($
255
million
under
the
Base
Estimate,
and
$
35
million
under
the
Alternative
Estimate)
are
associated
with
NOX
reductions
from
the
4SRB
subcategory
for
new
and
existing
engines.
Approximately
10
percent
of
the
total
benefits
($
25
million
under
the
Base
Estimate,
and
$
5
million
under
the
Alternative
Estimate)
are
associated
with
the
PM
reductions
from
the
compression
ignition
engine
subcategory
at
new
sources.

In
both
cases,
net
benefits
would
be
greater
if
all
the
benefits
of
the
HAP
and
other
pollutant
reductions
could
be
quantified.
Notable
omissions
to
the
net
benefits
include
all
benefits
of
HAP
and
CO
reductions,
including
reduced
cancer
incidences,
toxic
morbidity
effects,
and
cardiovascular
and
CNS
effects.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
not
all
benefits
of
NOX
reductions
have
been
monetized.
Categories
which
have
contributed
significantly
to
monetized
benefits
in
past
analyses
(
see
the
RIA
for
the
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
standards)
include
commercial
agriculture
and
forestry,
recreational
and
residential
visibility
improvements,
and
estuarine
improvements.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77855
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
4.
 
SUMMARY
OF
COSTS,
EMISSION
REDUCTIONS,
AND
QUANTIFIABLE
BENEFITS
BY
ENGINE
TYPE
Type
of
engine
Total
annualized
cost
(
million
$/
yr
in
the
5th
year
after
promulgation
Emission
reductions
A
(
tons/
yr
in
the
5th
year
after
promulgation)
Quantifiable
annual
monetized
benefits
B,
C
(
million
$/
yr
in
the
2005)

HAP
CO
NOX
PM
Base
estimate
Alternative
estimate
2SLB­
New
...........................................................
3
250
2,025
0
0
B1
B2
4SLB­
New
...........................................................
66
4,035
36,240
0
0
B3
B4
4SRB­
Existing
.....................................................
38
230
98,040
69,900
0
$
105
+
B
5
$
100
+
B
6
$
15
+
B
7
$
15
+
B
8
4SRB­
New
...........................................................
48
215
91,820
98,000
0
$
150
+
B
9
$
140
+
B
10
$
20
+
B
11
$
25
+
B
12
CI­
New
.................................................................
99
305
6,320
0
3,700
$
25
+
B
13
$
5
+
B
14
Total
.............................................................
254
5,035
234,445
167,900
3,700
$
280
+
B
$
265
+
B
$
40
+
B
$
45
+
B
A
For
the
calculation
of
PM­
related
benefits,
total
NOX
reductions
are
multiplied
by
the
appropriate
benefit
per
ton
value
presented
in
Table
8
 
7
of
the
RIA.
For
the
calculation
of
ozone­
related
benefits,
NOX
reductions
are
multiplied
by
5 
12
to
account
for
ozone
season
months
and
0.74
to
account
for
Eastern
States
in
the
ozone
analysis.
The
resulting
ozone­
related
NOX
reductions
are
multiplied
by
$
28
per
ton.
Ozone­
related
benefits
are
summed
together
with
PM­
related
benefits
to
derive
total
benefits
of
NOX
reductions.
All
benefits
values
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
$
5
million.
B
Benefits
of
HAP
and
CO
emissions
reductions
are
not
quantified
in
this
analysis
and,
therefore,
are
not
presented
in
this
table.
The
quantifiable
benefits
are
from
emissions
reductions
of
NOX
and
PM
only.
For
notational
purposes,
unquantified
benefits
are
indicated
with
a
``
B''
to
represent
monetary
benefits.
A
detailed
listing
of
unquantified
NOX,
PM,
and
HAP
related
health
effects
is
provided
in
Table
8
 
13
of
the
RIA.
C
Results
reflect
the
use
of
two
different
discount
rates;
a
3
percent
rate
which
is
recommended
by
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analyses
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2000a),
and
7
percent
which
is
recommended
by
OMB
Circular
A
 
94
(
OMB,
1992).

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

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
We
are
required
by
section
112
of
the
CAA,
42
U.
S.
C.
7412,
to
establish
the
standards
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
proposed
rule
primarily
affects
private
industry
and
does
not
impose
significant
economic
costs
on
State
or
local
governments.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
include
an
express
provision
preempting
State
or
local
regulations.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77856
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
consulted
with
representatives
of
State
and
local
governments
to
enable
them
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
into
the
development
of
the
proposed
rule.
This
consultation
took
place
during
the
ICCR
FACA
committee
meetings
where
members
representing
State
and
local
governments
participated
in
developing
recommendations
for
EPA's
combustion­
related
rulemakings,
including
the
proposed
rule.
The
concerns
raised
by
representatives
of
State
and
local
governments
were
considered
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
rule.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
we
specifically
solicit
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
No
known
stationary
RICE
are
located
within
the
jurisdiction
of
any
tribal
government.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
proposed
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
proposed
rule
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered.
The
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
associated
with
the
emissions
addressed
by
the
proposed
rule
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
The
public
is
invited
to
submit
or
identify
peer­
reviewed
studies
and
data,
of
which
the
Agency
may
not
be
aware,
that
assess
the
results
of
early
life
exposure
to
the
pollutants
addressed
by
the
proposed
rule
and
suggest
a
disproportionate
impact.

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

F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
we
establish
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77857
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
must
develop
a
small
government
agency
plan
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Accordingly,
we
have
prepared
a
written
statement
under
section
202
of
the
UMRA
which
is
summarized
below.
The
written
statement
is
in
the
docket.

1.
Statutory
Authority
As
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble,
the
statutory
authority
for
the
proposed
rulemaking
is
section
112
of
the
CAA.
Section
112(
b)
lists
the
189
chemicals,
compounds,
or
groups
of
chemicals
deemed
by
Congress
to
be
HAP.
These
toxic
air
pollutants
are
to
be
regulated
by
NESHAP.
Section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA
directs
us
to
develop
NESHAP
based
on
MACT
which
require
existing
and
new
major
sources
to
control
emissions
of
HAP.
These
NESHAP
apply
to
all
stationary
RICE
located
at
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions,
however,
only
certain
existing
and
new
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
have
substantive
regulatory
requirements.
In
compliance
with
section
205(
a),
we
identified
and
considered
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives.
The
regulatory
alternative
upon
which
the
proposed
rule
is
based
represents
the
MACT
floor
for
stationary
RICE
and,
as
a
result,
it
is
the
least
costly
and
least
burdensome
alternative.

2.
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
The
RIA
prepared
for
the
proposed
rule,
including
the
Agency's
assessment
of
costs
and
benefits,
is
detailed
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
RICE
NESHAP''
in
the
docket.
Based
on
estimated
compliance
costs
on
all
sources
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
the
predicted
change
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industries,
the
estimated
social
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
$
254
million
(
1998$).
It
is
estimated
that
5
years
after
implementation
of
the
proposed
rule,
HAP
will
be
reduced
by
5,000
tons
per
year
due
to
reductions
in
formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
methanol
and
other
HAP
from
existing
and
new
stationary
RICE.
Formaldehyde
and
acetaldehyde
have
been
classified
as
``
probable
human
carcinogens.''
Acrolein,
methanol
and
the
other
HAP
are
not
considered
carcinogenic,
but
produce
several
other
toxic
effects.
The
proposed
rule
will
also
achieve
reductions
in
234,400
tons
of
CO,
approximately
167,900
tons
of
NOX
per
year,
and
approximately
3,700
tons
of
PM
per
year.
Exposure
to
CO
can
effect
the
cardiovascular
system
and
the
central
nervous
system.
Emissions
of
NOX
can
transform
into
PM,
which
can
result
in
fatalities
and
many
respiratory
problems
(
such
as
asthma
or
bronchitis);
and
NOX
can
also
transform
into
ozone
causing
several
respiratory
problems
to
affected
populations.
At
the
present
time,
the
Agency
cannot
provide
a
monetary
estimate
for
the
benefits
associated
with
the
reductions
in
HAP
and
CO.
For
NOX
and
PM,
we
estimated
the
benefits
associated
with
health
effects
of
PM
but
were
unable
to
quantify
all
categories
of
benefits
of
NOX
(
particularly
those
associated
with
ecosystem
and
environmental
effects).
Unquantified
benefits
are
noted
with
``
B''
in
the
estimates
presented
below.
Total
monetized
benefits
are
approximately
$
280
million
+
B
(
1998$)
under
our
Base
Estimate
when
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
$
265
million
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).
Under
the
Alternative
Estimate,
total
benefits
are
approximately
$
40
million
+
B
when
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
$
45
million
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).
The
approach
to
value
benefits
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
this
preamble
under
the
Executive
Order
12866.
These
monetized
benefits
should
be
considered
along
with
the
many
categories
of
benefits
that
we
are
unable
to
place
a
dollar
value
on
to
consider
the
total
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule.

3.
Future
and
Disproportionate
Costs
The
UMRA
requires
that
we
estimate,
where
accurate
estimation
is
reasonably
feasible,
future
compliance
costs
imposed
by
the
proposed
rule
and
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects.
Our
estimates
of
the
future
compliance
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.
We
do
not
believe
that
there
will
be
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects
of
the
proposed
rule
on
any
particular
areas
of
the
country,
State
or
local
governments,
types
of
communities
(
e.
g.,
urban,
rural),
or
particular
industry
segments.

4.
Effects
on
the
National
Economy
The
UMRA
requires
that
we
estimate
the
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
the
national
economy.
To
the
extent
feasible,
we
must
estimate
the
effect
on
productivity,
economic
growth,
full
employment,
creation
of
productive
jobs,
and
international
competitiveness
of
the
U.
S.
goods
and
services
if
we
determine
that
accurate
estimates
are
reasonably
feasible
and
that
such
effect
is
relevant
and
material.
The
nationwide
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
is
presented
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
RICE
NESHAP''
in
the
docket.
This
analysis
provides
estimates
of
the
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
most
of
the
categories
mentioned
above.
The
results
of
the
economic
impact
analysis
are
summarized
previously
in
this
preamble.

5.
Consultation
With
Government
Officials
The
UMRA
requires
that
we
describe
the
extent
of
our
prior
consultation
with
affected
State,
local,
and
tribal
officials,
summarize
the
officials'
comments
or
concerns,
and
summarize
our
response
to
those
comments
or
concerns.
In
addition,
section
203
of
UMRA
requires
that
we
develop
a
plan
for
informing
and
advising
small
governments
that
may
be
significantly
or
uniquely
impacted
by
a
proposal.
Although
the
proposed
rule
does
not
affect
any
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
we
have
consulted
with
State
and
local
air
pollution
control
officials.
We
also
have
held
meetings
on
the
proposed
rule
with
many
of
the
stakeholders
from
numerous
individual
companies,
environmental
groups,
consultants
and
vendors,
labor
unions,
and
other
interested
parties.
We
have
added
materials
to
the
docket
to
document
these
meetings.
In
addition,
we
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1966
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77858
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
``
small
entity''
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
whose
parent
company
has
fewer
than
500
employees
(
for
most
affected
industries);
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
or
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
proposed
rule
covers
more
than
25
different
industries.
For
each
industry,
we
applied
the
definition
of
a
small
business
provided
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
at
13
CFR
part
121,
and
classified
by
the
NAICS.
The
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
defines
small
businesses
in
most
industries
affected
by
the
proposed
rule
as
those
with
fewer
than
500
employees.
However,
SBA
has
defined
``
small
business''
differently
for
a
limited
number
of
industries,
either
through
reference
to
another
employment
cap
or
through
the
substitution
of
total
yearly
revenues
in
place
of
an
employment
limit.
For
more
information
on
the
size
standards
for
particular
industries,
please
refer
to
the
regulatory
impact
analysis
in
the
docket.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
support
of
this
certification,
EPA
examined
the
percentage
of
annual
revenues
that
compliance
costs
may
consume
if
small
entities
must
absorb
all
of
the
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.
Since
many
firms
will
be
able
to
pass
along
some
or
all
compliance
costs
to
customers,
actual
impacts
will
frequently
be
lower
than
those
analyzed
here.
As
is
mentioned
in
previous
sections
of
this
preamble,
the
proposed
rule
will
set
standards
for
only
a
limited
set
of
existing
units,
specifically
4SRB
units.
For
all
other
types
of
engines,
the
proposed
rule
would
impose
requirements
only
on
new
engines.
The
EPA
identified
a
total
of
26,832
engines
located
at
commercial,
industrial,
and
government
facilities.
From
this
initial
population
of
26,832
engines,
10,118
engines
were
excluded
because
the
proposed
regulation
will
not
cover
engines
smaller
than
500
horsepower
or
engines
used
to
supply
emergency/
backup
power.
Of
the
16,714
units
remaining,
2,645
units
had
sufficient
information
to
assign
to
model
unit
numbers
developed
during
the
cost
analysis.
These
2,645
units
were
linked
to
834
existing
facilities,
owned
by
153
parent
companies.
A
total
of
47
companies
were
identified
as
small
entities,
and
only
13
of
them
own
4SRB
engines.
These
small
entities
own
a
total
of
39
4SRB
units
at
21
facilities.
Further,
assuming
only
40
percent
of
the
all
RICE
sources
are
located
at
major
sources
and,
thus,
affected
by
the
regulation,
about
16
of
the
39
4SRB
units
identified
at
facilities
owned
by
small
businesses
would
be
located
at
major
sources.
Under
this
scenario,
there
are
no
small
firms
that
have
compliance
costs
above
3
percent
of
firm
revenues
and
only
two
small
firms
owning
4SRB
engines
that
have
impacts
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues.
In
addition
to
12
small
firms
with
4SRB
engines,
there
is
one
small
government
in
the
Inventory
Database
affected
by
the
proposed
rule.
The
costs
to
this
city
are
approximately
$
3
per
capita
annually
assuming
their
engine
is
affected
by
the
proposed
rule,
less
than
0.01
percent
of
median
household
income.
Based
on
this
subset
of
the
existing
engines
population,
the
regulation
will
affect
no
small
entities
owning
RICE
at
a
cost
to
sales
ratio
(
CSR)
greater
than
3
percent,
while
approximately
4
percent
(
2/
47)
of
small
entities
owning
RICE
greater
than
500
horsepower
will
have
compliance
costs
between
1
and
3
percent
of
sales
under
an
upper
bound
cost
scenario.
In
comparison,
the
total
existing
population
of
engines
with
greater
than
500
horsepower
that
are
not
backup
units
is
estimated
to
be
22,018.
Assuming
the
same
breakdown
of
large
and
small
company
ownership
of
engines
in
the
total
population
of
existing
engines
as
in
the
subset
with
parent
company
information
identified,
the
Agency
expects
that
approximately
17
small
entities
in
the
existing
population
of
RICE
owners
would
have
CSR
between
1
and
3
percent
under
an
upper
bound
cost
scenario
where
we
assume
all
RICE
owned
by
small
entities
are
located
at
major
sources.
In
addition,
because
many
small
entities
owning
RICE
will
not
be
affected
because
of
the
exclusion
of
engines
with
less
than
500
horsepower,
the
percentage
of
all
small
companies
owning
RICE
that
are
affected
by
the
proposed
rule
is
even
smaller.
Based
on
the
proportion
of
engines
in
the
Inventory
Database
that
are
greater
than
500
horsepower
and
are
not
backup
units
(
16,714/
26,832,
or
62.3
percent)
and
assuming
that
small
companies
own
the
same
proportion
of
small
engines
(
less
than
500
horsepower)
as
they
do
of
engines
greater
than
500
horsepower,
the
Agency
estimates
that
628
small
companies
own
RICE.
Of
all
small
companies
owning
RICE,
2.7
percent
(
17/
628)
are
expected
to
have
CSR
between
1
and
3
percent
under
an
upper
bound
cost
scenario.
If
the
percentage
of
RICE
owned
by
small
companies
that
are
located
at
major
sources
is
the
same
as
the
engine
population
overall
(
40
percent),
only
about
1.1
percent
of
small
companies
owning
RICE
would
be
expected
to
have
CSR
greater
than
1
percent.
The
average
profit
margin
for
the
industries
in
our
analysis
is
approximately
5
percent.
Therefore,
based
on
this
median
profit
margin
data,
it
seems
reasonable
to
review
the
number
of
small
firms
with
CSR
above
3
percent
in
screening
for
significant
impacts.
In
addition,
based
on
the
low
number
of
affected
small
firms,
the
fact
that
no
small
firms
have
CSR
between
3
and
5
percent,
and
the
fact
that
industry
profit
margins
average
5
percent,
this
analysis
concludes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
existing
small
entities.
For
new
sources,
it
can
be
reasonably
assumed
that
the
investment
decision
to
purchase
a
new
engine
may
be
slightly
altered
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule.
In
fact,
for
the
entire
population
of
affected
engines
(
approximately
20,000
new
engines
over
a
5­
year
period),
2
fewer
engines
(
0.01
percent)
may
be
purchased
due
to
changes
in
costs
of
the
engines
and
market
responses
to
the
proposed
rule.
It
is
not
possible,
however,
to
determine
future
investment
decisions
by
the
small
entities
in
the
affected
industries,
so
we
cannot
link
these
2
engines
to
any
one
firm
(
small
or
large).
Overall,
it
is
very
unlikely
that
a
substantial
number
of
small
firms
who
may
consider
purchasing
a
new
engine
will
be
significantly
impacted,
because
the
decision
to
purchase
new
engines
is
not
altered
to
a
large
extent.
In
addition
to
this
consideration
of
costs
on
some
firms
attributable
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
notes
the
proposed
rule
is
likely
to
increase
revenues
for
many
small
firms,
including
those
not
regulated
by
the
proposed
rule,
due
to
a
predictable
increase
in
prices
of
natural
gas
in
the
industry.
Although
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
nonetheless
has
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77859
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
entities.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
are
applying
the
minimum
level
of
control
allowed
by
the
CAA
(
i.
e.,
the
MACT
floor),
and
the
minimum
level
of
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
by
affected
sources.
In
addition,
as
mentioned
earlier
in
the
preamble,
new
RICE
units
with
capacities
under
500
horsepower
and
those
that
operate
as
emergency/
limited
use
units
are
not
covered
by
the
proposed
rule,
provisions
that
should
greatly
reduce
the
level
of
small­
entity
impacts.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
reducing
any
remaining
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
will
be
submitted
for
approval
to
the
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
(
ICR
No.
1975.01)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC
200,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
national
emission
standards.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
maintenance
inspections
of
the
control
devices
but
would
not
require
any
notifications
or
reports
beyond
those
required
by
the
General
Provisions.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
require
only
the
specific
information
needed
to
determine
compliance.
The
annual
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
standards)
is
estimated
to
be
142,436
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
15,998,347.
The
estimate
includes
a
one­
time
performance
test
and
report
(
with
repeat
tests
where
needed);
onetime
purchase
and
installation
of
bag
leak
detection
systems;
one­
time
submission
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
with
semiannual
reports
for
any
event
when
the
procedures
in
the
plan
were
not
followed;
semiannual
excess
emission
reports;
maintenance
inspections;
notifications;
and
recordkeeping.
Total
capital/
startup
costs
associated
with
the
monitoring
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR
are
estimated
at
$
5,436,882,
with
operation
and
maintenance
costs
of
$
1,208,206/
yr.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
That
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
the
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
our
need
for
the
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20500;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
St.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
December
19,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
January
21,
2003.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
proposed
rule.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Pub.
L.
No.
104
 
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
us
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
proposed
rulemaking
involves
technical
standards.
We
propose
in
the
rule
to
use
EPA
Methods
1,
1A,
3A,
3B,
4,
10
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
Method
320
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A;
PS
3,
PS
4A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B;
EPA
SW
 
8
Method
0011,
and
ARB
Method
430,
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Air
Resources
Board,
2020
L
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95812.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
we
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
1A,
3B,
PS
3,
PS
4
of
CFR
part
60,
and
ARB
Method
430,
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Air
Resources
Board,
2020
L
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95812.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
are
placed
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rule.
One
voluntary
consensus
standard
was
identified
as
applicable,
and
we
propose
to
use
that
standard
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard,
ASTM
D6522
 
00
(
2000)
 
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determination
of
Nitrogen
Oxides,
Carbon
Monoxide,
and
Oxygen
Concentrations
in
Emissions
From
Natural
Gas­
Fired
Reciprocating
Engines,
Combustion
Turbines,
Boilers,
and
Process
Heaters
Using
Portable
Analyzers,
is
an
acceptable
alternative
procedure
for
use
in
determining
carbon
monoxide
and
oxygen
concentrations
the
exhaust
gases
of
reciprocating
internal
combustion
engines.
In
addition
to
the
voluntary
consensus
standard
we
propose
to
use
in
the
rule,
this
search
for
emission
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77860
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
measurement
procedures
identified
ten
other
voluntary
consensus
standards.
We
determined
that
six
of
these
ten
standards
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking.
Therefore,
we
do
not
propose
to
adopt
these
standards
today.
The
reasons
for
this
determination
for
the
six
methods
are
discussed
below.
Two
of
the
six
voluntary
consensus
standards
are
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
because
they
are
too
general,
too
broad,
or
not
sufficiently
detailed
to
assure
compliance
with
EPA
regulatory
requirements:
ASTM
E337
 
84
(
Reapproved
1996),
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Measuring
Humidity
with
a
Psychrometer
(
the
Measurement
of
Wet­
and
Dry­
Bulb
Temperatures),''
for
EPA
Method
4
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
and
CAN/
CSA
Z223.2
 
M86(
1986),
``
Method
for
the
Continuous
Measurement
of
Oxygen,
Carbon
Dioxide,
Carbon
Monoxide,
Sulphur
Dioxide,
and
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
in
Enclosed
Combustion
Flue
Gas
Streams,''
for
EPA
Method
3A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
Four
of
the
six
voluntary
consensus
standards
are
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
because
they
lacked
sufficient
quality
assurance
and
quality
control
requirements
necessary
for
EPA
compliance
assurance
requirements:
ASTM
D3154
 
91,
``
Standard
Method
for
Average
Velocity
in
a
Duct
(
Pitot
Tube
Method),''
for
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2C,
3,
3B,
and
4
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
ASTM
D5835
 
95,
``
Standard
Practice
for
Sampling
Stationary
Source
Emissions
for
Automated
Determination
of
Gas
Concentration,''
for
EPA
Method
3A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
ISO
10396:
1993,
``
Stationary
Source
Emissions:
Sampling
for
the
Automated
Determination
of
Gas
Concentrations,''
for
EPA
Method
3A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
ISO
9096:
1992,
``
Determination
of
Concentration
and
Mass
Flow
Rate
of
Particulate
Matter
in
Gas
Carrying
Ducts
 
Manual
Gravimetric
Method,''
for
EPA
Method
5
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
following
four
of
the
ten
voluntary
consensus
standards
identified
in
this
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:
ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
``
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,''
for
EPA
Method
1
(
and
possibly
2)
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
ISO/
DIS
12039,
``
Stationary
Source
Emissions
 
Determination
of
Carbon
Monoxide,
Carbon
Dioxide,
and
Oxygen
 
Automated
Methods,''
for
EPA
Method
3A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A;
ASTM
D6348
 
98,
``
Determination
of
Gaseous
Compounds
by
Extractive
Direct
Interface
Fourier
Transform
(
FTIR)
Spectroscopy,''
for
EPA
Method
320
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A;
and
Gas
Research
Institute,
``
Measurement
of
Formaldehyde
Emissions
Using
the
Acetylacetone
Colorimetric
Method''
for
EPA
Method
320
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
While
we
are
not
proposing
to
include
these
four
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
today's
proposal,
we
will
consider
the
standards
when
final.
The
consensus
standard,
GRI,
``
Measurement
of
Formaldehyde
Emissions
Using
the
Acetylacetone
Colorimetric
Method,''
is
currently
under
our
review
as
an
alternative
method
for
sampling
formaldehyde
emissions
in
the
exhaust
of
natural
gasfired
combustion
sources.
This
standard
is
based
on
the
``
Chilled
Impinger
Train
Method
for
Methanol,
Acetone,
Acetaldehyde,
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone,
and
Formaldehyde''
and
is
described
by
the
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement
in
its
Technical
Bulletin
No.
684,
dated
December
1994.
After
EPA's
review,
if
this
GRI
standard
is
determined
to
be
technically
appropriate
for
identifying
formaldehyde
emissions,
it
could
be
incorporated
by
reference
for
our
regulatory
applicability
at
a
later
date.
For
the
voluntary
consensus
standard,
ASTM
D6348
 
98,
``
Determination
of
Gaseous
Compounds
by
Extractive
Direct
Interface
Fourier
Transform
(
FTIR)
Spectroscopy,''
we
have
submitted
comments
to
ASTM
regarding
EPA's
technical
evaluation
of
ASTM
D6348
 
98.
Currently,
the
ASTM
Subcommittee
D22
 
03
is
undertaking
a
revision
of
the
ASTM
standard
in
part
to
address
EPA's
comments.
Upon
successful
ASTM
balloting
and
demonstration
of
technical
equivalency
with
EPA's
FTIR
methods,
the
revised
ASTM
standard
could
be
incorporated
by
reference
for
EPA
regulatory
applicability.
We
are
taking
comment
on
the
compliance
demonstration
requirements
in
the
proposed
rulemaking
and
specifically
invite
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
Commentors
should
also
explain
why
the
proposed
regulation
should
adopt
these
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
lieu
of
or
in
addition
to
EPA's
standards.
Emission
test
methods
and
performance
specifications
submitted
for
evaluation
should
be
accompanied
with
a
basis
for
the
recommendation,
including
method
validation
data
and
the
procedure
used
to
validate
the
candidate
method
(
if
a
method
other
than
Method
301,
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A,
was
used).
Tables
4,
5,
and
6
of
proposed
subpart
ZZZZ
list
the
EPA
testing
methods
and
performance
standards
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
Under
40
CFR
63.8
of
subpart
A
of
the
General
Provisions,
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
monitoring
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
testing
methods.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

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

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

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

Emission
and
Operating
Limitations
63.6600
What
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
must
I
meet?

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

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77861
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
63.6625
What
are
my
monitor
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements?
63.6630
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations?

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

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

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

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

§
63.6585
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?

You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
stationary
RICE
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
except
if
the
stationary
RICE
is
being
tested
at
a
stationary
RICE
test
cell/
stand.
(
a)
A
stationary
RICE
is
any
internal
combustion
engine
which
uses
reciprocating
motion
to
convert
heat
energy
into
mechanical
work
and
which
is
not
mobile.
Stationary
RICE
differ
from
mobile
RICE
in
that
stationary
RICE
are
not
self­
propelled,
are
not
intended
to
be
propelled
while
performing
their
function,
or
are
not
portable
or
transportable
as
that
term
is
identified
in
the
definition
of
non­
road
engine
at
40
CFR
89.2.
(
b)
A
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
a
plant
site
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
10
tons
(
9.07
megagrams)
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
25
tons
(
22.68
megagrams)
or
more
per
year,
except
that
for
oil
and
gas
production
facilities,
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
determined
for
each
surface
site.

§
63.6590
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?

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

§
63.6595
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
Affected
sources.
(
1)
If
you
have
an
existing
stationary
RICE,
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
no
later
than
[
3
years
after
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
(
2)
If
you
start
up
your
new
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
before
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
in
this
subpart
no
later
than
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register].
(
3)
If
you
start
up
your
new
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
after
[
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
in
this
subpart
upon
startup
of
your
affected
source.
(
b)
Area
sources
that
become
major
sources.
If
you
have
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP,
any
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
stationary
RICE
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
when
the
area
source
becomes
a
major
source.
(
c)
If
you
own
or
operate
an
affected
RICE,
you
must
meet
the
applicable
notification
requirements
in
§
63.6645
and
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A.

Emission
and
Operating
Limitations
§
63.6600
What
emission
limitations
and
operating
limitations
must
I
meet?
(
a)
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
spark
ignition
4
stroke
rich
burn
(
4SRB)
stationary
RICE
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
Table
1(
a)
of
this
subpart
and
the
operating
limitations
in
Table
1(
b)
of
this
subpart
which
apply
to
you.
(
b)
If
you
own
or
operate
a
new
or
reconstructed
2SLB
or
4SLB
stationary
RICE
or
a
new
or
reconstructed
CI
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77862
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
stationary
RICE
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
you
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
Table
2(
a)
of
this
subpart
and
the
operating
limitations
in
Table
2(
b)
of
this
subpart
which
apply
to
you.
(
c)
If
you
own
or
operate:
an
existing
2SLB
stationary
RICE,
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
or
a
CI
stationary
RICE;
a
stationary
RICE
that
combusts
digester
gas
or
landfill
gas
as
the
primary
fuel;
an
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE;
a
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less;
or
a
stationary
RICE
which
is
being
tested
at
a
stationary
RICE
test
cell/
stand,
you
do
not
need
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
Tables
1(
a)
and
2(
a)
of
this
subpart
or
operating
limitations
in
Tables
1(
b)
and
2(
b)
of
this
subpart.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
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
§
63.6610
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
the
initial
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
You
must
conduct
the
initial
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations
in
Table
4
of
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you
within
180
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
stationary
RICE
in
§
63.6595
and
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.7(
a)(
2).

§
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.

§
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
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
under
the
specific
conditions
that
this
subpart
specifies
in
Table
4.
(
c)
You
may
not
conduct
performance
tests
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1).
(
d)
You
must
conduct
three
separate
test
runs
for
each
performance
test
required
in
this
section,
as
specified
in
§
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:

C
C
C
i
o
i
 
×
100
=
R
(
Eq.
1)

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
EP19DE02.000</
MATH>
77863
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
63.6625
What
are
my
monitoring
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements?

(
a)
If
you
are
required
to
install
a
CEMS
as
specified
in
Table
5
of
this
subpart,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
a
CEMS
to
monitor
CO
and
either
oxygen
or
CO2
at
both
the
inlet
and
the
outlet
of
the
oxidation
catalyst
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Each
CEMS
must
be
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
according
to
the
applicable
performance
specifications
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
(
2)
You
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
evaluation
and
an
annual
relative
accuracy
test
audit
(
RATA)
of
each
CEMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
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
§
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
§
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
§
63.8.

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

(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
each
emission
and
operating
limitation
that
applies
to
you
according
to
Table
5
of
this
subpart.
(
b)
During
the
initial
performance
test,
you
must
establish
each
operating
limitation
in
Tables
1(
b)
and
2(
b)
of
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
c)
You
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
containing
the
results
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6645.
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.6635
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

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

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

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

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.6645
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?

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

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77864
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
e)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
required
in
§
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
§
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii).
(
1)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
required
in
Table
5
of
this
subpart
that
does
not
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(
2)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
required
in
Table
5
of
this
subpart
that
includes
a
performance
test
conducted
according
to
the
requirements
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
you
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status,
including
the
performance
test
results,
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
2).

§
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
§
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
§
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
§
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
§
63.6595.
(
3)
Each
subsequent
Compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
4)
Each
subsequent
Compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
5)
For
each
stationary
RICE
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
and
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
Compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
c)
The
Compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official,
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
accuracy
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
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
§
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
§
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
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77865
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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.

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

§
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
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.10(
b)(
1),
you
must
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
(
c)
You
must
keep
each
record
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record,
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
You
can
keep
the
records
offsite
for
the
remaining
3
years.

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.6665
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
Table
8
of
this
subpart
shows
which
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
in
§
§
63.1
through
63.15
apply
to
you.
If
you
own
or
operate
an
existing
2SLB,
an
existing
4SLB
stationary
RICE,
an
existing
CI
stationary
RICE,
or
a
stationary
RICE
with
a
manufacturer's
nameplate
rating
of
500
brake
horsepower
or
less,
you
do
not
need
to
comply
with
any
of
the
requirements
of
the
General
Provisions.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
stationary
RICE
that
combusts
digester
gas
or
landfill
gas
as
the
primary
fuel
or
is
an
emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE,
you
do
not
need
to
comply
with
the
requirements
in
the
General
Provisions
except
for
the
initial
notification
requirements.

§
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
§
63.6600
under
§
63.6(
g).
(
2)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
4)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.

§
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
autoignition
including
diesel
engines
and
dual­
fuel
engines.
Custody
transfer
means
the
transfer
of
hydrocarbon
liquids
or
natural
gas:
after
processing
and/
or
treatment
in
the
producing
operations,
or
from
storage
vessels
or
automatic
transfer
facilities
or
other
such
equipment,
including
product
loading
racks,
to
pipelines
or
any
other
forms
of
transportation.
For
the
purposes
of
this
subpart,
the
point
at
which
such
liquids
or
natural
gas
enters
a
natural
gas
processing
plant
is
a
point
of
custody
transfer.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
emission
limitation
or
operating
limitation;
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limitation
or
operating
limitation
in
this
subpart
during
malfunction,
regardless
or
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Diesel
engine
means
any
stationary
RICE
in
which
a
high
boiling
point
liquid
fuel
injected
into
the
combustion
chamber
ignites
when
the
air
charge
has
been
compressed
to
a
temperature
sufficiently
high
for
auto­
ignition.
This
process
is
also
known
as
compression
ignition.
Diesel
fuel
means
any
liquid
obtained
from
the
distillation
of
petroleum
with
a
boiling
point
of
approximately
150
to
360
degrees
Celsius.
One
commonly
used
form
is
fuel
oil
number
2.
Digester
gas
means
any
gaseous
byproduct
of
wastewater
treatment
formed
through
the
anaerobic
decomposition
of
organic
waste
materials
and
composed
principally
of
methane
and
CO2.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77866
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Dual­
fuel
engine
means
any
stationary
RICE
in
which
a
liquid
fuel
(
typically
diesel
fuel)
is
used
for
compression
ignition
and
gaseous
fuel
(
typically
natural
gas)
is
used
as
the
primary
fuel.
Emergency
power/
limited
use
stationary
RICE
means
any
stationary
RICE
that
operates
as
a
mechanical
or
electrical
power
source
when
the
primary
power
source
for
a
facility
has
been
rendered
inoperable
by
an
emergency
situation.
Examples
include
stationary
RICE
used
when
electric
power
from
the
local
utility
is
interrupted,
stationary
RICE
used
to
pump
water
in
the
case
of
fire
or
flood,
etc.
Emergency
power/
limited
use
units
also
include
units
that
operate
less
than
50
hours
per
year
in
non­
emergency
situations,
including
certain
peaking
units
at
electric
facilities
and
stationary
RICE
at
industrial
facilities.
Four­
stroke
engine
means
any
type
of
engine
which
completes
the
power
cycle
in
two
crankshaft
revolutions,
with
intake
and
compression
strokes
in
the
first
revolution
and
power
and
exhaust
strokes
in
the
second
revolution.
Gaseous
fuel
means
a
material
used
for
combustion
which
is
normally
a
gas
with
a
heating
value
at
standard
temperature
and
pressure.
Hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
means
any
air
pollutants
listed
in
or
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)
of
the
CAA.
ISO
standard
day
conditions
means
288
degrees
Kelvin
(
15
degrees
Celsius),
60
percent
relative
humidity
and
101.3
kilopascals
pressure.
Landfill
gas
means
a
gaseous
byproduct
of
the
land
application
of
municipal
refuse
formed
through
the
anaerobic
decomposition
of
waste
materials
and
composed
principally
of
methane
and
CO2.
Lean
burn
engine
means
any
twostroke
or
four­
stroke
engine
where
the
manufacturer's
recommended
operating
air/
fuel
ratio
divided
by
the
stoichiometric
air/
fuel
ratio
is
greater
than
1.1.
Liquefied
petroleum
gas
means
any
liquefied
hydrocarbon
gas
obtained
as
a
by­
product
in
petroleum
refining
of
natural
gas
production.
Liquid
fuel
means
any
fuel
in
liquid
form
at
standard
temperature
and
pressure,
including
but
not
limited
to
diesel,
residual/
crude
oil,
kerosene/
naphtha
(
jet
fuel),
and
gasoline.
Major
Source,
as
used
in
this
subpart,
shall
have
the
same
meaning
as
in
§
63.2,
except
that:
(
1)
Emissions
from
any
oil
or
gas
exploration
or
production
well
(
with
its
associated
equipment
(
as
defined
in
this
section))
and
emissions
from
any
pipeline
compressor
station
or
pump
station
shall
not
be
aggregated
with
emissions
from
other
similar
units,
to
determine
whether
such
emission
points
or
stations
are
major
sources,
even
when
emission
points
are
in
a
contiguous
area
or
under
common
control
except
when
they
are
on
the
same
surface
site;
(
2)
For
oil
and
gas
production
facilities,
emissions
from
processes,
operations,
or
equipment
that
are
not
part
of
the
same
oil
and
gas
production
facility,
as
defined
in
this
section,
shall
not
be
aggregated;
and
(
3)
For
production
field
facilities,
only
HAP
emissions
from
glycol
dehydration
units,
storage
tanks
with
flash
emissions
potential,
combustion
turbines
and
reciprocating
internal
combustion
engines
shall
be
aggregated
for
a
major
source
determination.
Malfunction
means
any
sudden,
infrequent,
and
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
air
pollution
control
equipment,
process
equipment,
or
a
process
to
operate
in
a
normal
or
usual
manner.
Failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Natural
gas
means
a
naturally
occurring
mixture
of
hydrocarbon
and
non­
hydrocarbon
gases
found
in
geologic
formations
beneath
the
Earth's
surface,
of
which
the
principal
constituent
is
methane.
May
be
field
or
pipeline
quality.
Non­
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
NSCR)
means
an
add­
on
catalytic
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOX)
control
device
for
rich
burn
engines
that,
in
a
two­
step
reaction,
promotes
the
conversion
of
excess
oxygen,
NOX,
CO,
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
into
CO2,
nitrogen,
and
water.
Oil
and
gas
production
facility
as
used
in
this
subpart
means
any
grouping
of
equipment
where
hydrocarbon
liquids
are
processed,
upgraded
(
i.
e.,
remove
impurities
or
other
constituents
to
meet
contract
specifications),
or
stored
prior
to
the
point
of
custody
transfer;
or
where
natural
gas
is
processed,
upgraded,
or
stored
prior
to
entering
the
natural
gas
transmission
and
storage
source
category.
For
purposes
of
a
major
source
determination,
facility
(
including
a
building,
structure,
or
installation)
means
oil
and
natural
gas
production
and
processing
equipment
that
is
located
within
the
boundaries
of
an
individual
surface
site
as
defined
in
this
section.
Equipment
that
is
part
of
a
facility
will
typically
be
located
within
close
proximity
to
other
equipment
located
at
the
same
facility.
Pieces
of
production
equipment
or
groupings
of
equipment
located
on
different
oil
and
gas
leases,
mineral
fee
tracts,
lease
tracts,
subsurface
or
surface
unit
areas,
surface
fee
tracts,
surface
lease
tracts,
or
separate
surface
sites,
whether
or
not
connected
by
a
road,
waterway,
power
line
or
pipeline,
shall
not
be
considered
part
of
the
same
facility.
Examples
of
facilities
in
the
oil
and
natural
gas
production
source
category
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
well
sites,
satellite
tank
batteries,
central
tank
batteries,
a
compressor
station
that
transports
natural
gas
to
a
natural
gas
processing
plant,
and
natural
gas
processing
plants.
Oxidation
catalyst
means
an
add­
on
catalytic
control
device
for
lean
burn
engines
that
controls
CO
and
VOC
by
oxidation.
Peaking
unit
or
engine
means
any
standby
engine
intended
for
use
during
periods
of
high
demand
that
are
not
emergencies.
Potential
to
emit
means
the
maximum
capacity
of
a
stationary
source
to
emit
a
pollutant
under
its
physical
and
operational
design.
Any
physical
or
operational
limitation
on
the
capacity
of
the
stationary
source
to
emit
a
pollutant,
including
air
pollution
control
equipment
and
restrictions
on
hours
of
operation
or
on
the
type
or
amount
of
material
combusted,
stored,
or
processed,
shall
be
treated
as
part
of
its
design
if
the
limitation
or
the
effect
it
would
have
on
emissions
is
federally
enforceable.
Production
field
facility
means
those
oil
and
gas
production
facilities
located
prior
to
the
point
of
custody
transfer.
Propane
means
a
colorless
gas
derived
from
petroleum
and
natural
gas,
with
the
molecular
structure
C3H8,
suitable
for
use
in
spark­
ignited
internal
combustion
engines.
Responsible
official
means
responsible
official
as
defined
in
40
CFR
70.2.
Rich
burn
engine
means
any
fourstroke
spark
ignited
engine
where
the
manufacturer's
recommended
operating
air/
fuel
ratio
divided
by
the
stoichiometric
air/
fuel
ratio
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1.1.
Spark
ignition
engine
means
a
type
of
engine
in
which
a
compressed
air/
fuel
mixture
is
ignited
by
a
timed
electric
spark
generated
by
a
spark
plug.
Stationary
reciprocating
internal
combustion
engine
(
RICE)
means
any
reciprocating
internal
combustion
engine
which
uses
reciprocating
motion
to
convert
heat
energy
into
mechanical
work
and
which
is
not
mobile.
Stationary
RICE
differ
from
mobile
RICE
in
that
stationary
RICE
are
not
self
propelled,
are
not
intended
to
be
propelled
while
performing
their
function,
or
are
not
portable
or
transportable
as
that
term
is
identified
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77867
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
in
the
definition
of
non­
road
engine
at
40
CFR
89.2.
Stationary
RICE
test
cell/
stand
means
an
engine
test
cell/
stand,
as
defined
in
subpart
PPPPP
of
this
part,
that
tests
stationary
RICE.
Stoichiometric
means
the
theoretical
air­
to­
fuel
ratio
required
for
complete
combustion.
Subpart
means
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
ZZZZ.
Surface
site
means
any
combination
of
one
or
more
graded
pad
sites,
gravel
pad
sites,
foundations,
platforms,
or
the
immediate
physical
location
upon
which
equipment
is
physically
affixed.
Two­
stroke
engine
means
a
type
of
engine
which
completes
the
power
cycle
in
single
crankshaft
revolution
by
combining
the
intake
and
compression
operations
into
one
stroke
and
the
power
and
exhaust
operations
into
a
second
stroke.
This
system
requires
auxiliary
scavenging
and
inherently
runs
lean
of
stoichiometric.

Tables
to
Subpart
ZZZZ
of
Part
63
TABLE
1A
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
FOR
EXISTING,
NEW,
AND
RECONSTRUCTED
SPARK
IGNITION,
4SRB
STATIONARY
RICE
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6600
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
emission
limitations
for
existing,
new
and
reconstructed
4SRB
stationary
RICE]

For
each
.
.
.
You
must
meet
one
of
the
following
emission
limitations
.
.
.

1.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
..........................................................................
a.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
by
75
percent
or
more,
if
you
use
NSCR;
or
b.
Limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
to
350
ppbvd
or
less
at
15
percent
O2,
if
you
use
means
other
than
NSCR
to
reduce
HAP
emissions.

TABLE
1B
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITATIONS
FOR
EXISTING,
NEW,
AND
RECONSTRUCTED
SPARK
IGNITION,
4SRB
STATIONARY
RICE
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6600,
63.6630
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
operating
emission
limitations
for
existing,
new
and
reconstructed
4SRB
stationary
RICE]

For
each
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
operating
limitation
.
.
.

1.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
by
75
percent
or
more
using
NSCR.
a.
Maintain
your
catalyst
so
that
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
does
not
change
by
more
than
two
inches
of
water
from
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test;
and
b.
Maintain
your
catalyst
so
that
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
is
no
more
than
5
percent
different
from
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test;
and
c.
Maintain
the
temperature
of
your
stationary
RICE
exhaust
so
that
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
750
°
F
and
less
than
or
equal
to
1250
°
F.
2.
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
using
means
other
than
NSCR
to
reduce
emissions.
a.
Maintain
an
operating
load
equal
to
or
greater
than
95
percent
of
the
operating
load
established
during
the
initial
performance
test;
or
b.
Maintain
a
fuel
flow
rate
equal
to
or
greater
than
95
percent
of
the
fuel
flow
rate
established
during
the
initial
performance
test;
and
c.
You
must
comply
with
any
additional
operating
limitations
approved
by
the
Administrator.

TABLE
2A
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
FOR
NEW
AND
RECONSTRUCTED
LEAN
BURN
AND
COMPRESSION
IGNITION
STATIONARY
RICE
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6600
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
emission
limitations
for
new
and
reconstructed
lean
burn
and
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE]

For
each
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
stationary
RICE
..........................................................................
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
by
60
percent
or
more,
if
you
use
an
oxidation
catalyst;
or
b.
Limit
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
to
17
ppmvd
or
less
at
15
percent
O2,
if
you
use
some
means
other
than
an
oxidation
catalyst
to
reduce
emissions.
2.
4SLB
stationary
RICE
..........................................................................
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
by
93
percent
or
more,
if
you
use
an
oxidation
catalyst;
or
b.
Limit
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
to
14
ppmvd
or
less
at
15
percent
O2,
if
you
use
some
means
other
than
an
oxidation
catalyst
to
reduce
emissions.
3.
CI
stationary
RICE
...............................................................................
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
by
70
percent
or
more,
if
you
use
an
oxidation
catalyst;
or
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77868
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
2A
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
FOR
NEW
AND
RECONSTRUCTED
LEAN
BURN
AND
COMPRESSION
IGNITION
STATIONARY
RICE
 
Continued
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6600
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
emission
limitations
for
new
and
reconstructed
lean
burn
and
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE]

For
each
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
emission
limitation
.
.
.

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

TABLE
2B
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITATIONS
FOR
NEW
AND
RECONSTRUCTED
LEAN
BURN
AND
COMPRESSION
IGNITION
STATIONARY
RICE
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6600,
63.6630,
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
operating
limitations
for
new
and
reconstructed
lean
burn
and
compression
ignition
stationary
RICE]

For
each
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
operating
limitation
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
<
5000
complying
with
the
requirement
to
reduce
CO
emissions
using
an
oxidation
catalyst.
a.
Maintain
your
catalyst
so
that
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
does
not
change
by
more
than
two
inches
of
water
from
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
that
was
measured
during
the
initial
performance
test;
and
b.
Maintain
the
temperature
of
your
stationary
RICE
exhaust
so
that
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
500
°
F
and
less
than
or
equal
to
1250
°
F.
2.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
complying
with
the
requirement
to
limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
a.
Maintain
an
operating
load
equal
to
or
greater
than
95
percent
of
the
operating
load
established
during
the
initial
performance
test;
or
b.
Maintain
a
fuel
flow
rate
equal
to
or
greater
than
95
percent
of
the
fuel
flow
rate
established
during
the
initial
performance
test;
and
c.
You
must
comply
with
any
additional
operating
limitations
approved
by
the
Administrator.

TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
SUBSEQUENT
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6615
and
63.6620,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
subsequent
performance
test
requirements]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
<
5000.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
oxidation
catalyst.
Conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
quarterly
2.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
 
5000.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
75
percent
or
more
using
NSCR.
Conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
semiannually
a.
3.
Stationary
RICE
(
all
stationary
RICE
subcategories
and
all
brake
horsepower
ratings).
Limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust,
if
using
means
other
than
an
oxidation
catalyst
or
NSCR.
Conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
semiannually
a.

a
After
you
have
demonstrated
compliance
for
two
consecutive
tests,
you
may
reduce
the
frequency
of
subsequent
performance
tests
to
annually
If
the
results
of
any
subsequent
annual
performance
test
indicate
the
stationary
RICE
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
formaldehyde
emission
limitation,
or
you
deviate
from
any
of
your
operating
limitations,
you
must
resume
semiannual
performance
tests.

TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6610,
63.6620,
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
requirements
for
performance
tests]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.
Using
.
.
.
According
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
<
5000.
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
oxidation
catalyst
i.
Measure
the
O2
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
oxidation
catalyst.
and
(
1)
Portable
CO
and
O2
analyzer.
(
a)
Using
ASTM
D6522
 
00
b.
Measurements
to
determine
O2
must
be
made
at
the
same
time
as
the
measurements
for
CO
concentration.
ii.
Measure
the
CO
at
the
inlet
and
the
outlet
of
the
oxidation
catalyst.
(
1)
Portable
CO
and
O2
analyzer.
(
a)
Using
ASTM
D6522
 
00
b.
The
CO
concentration
must
be
at
15
percent
O2,
dry
basis.
2.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
..
a.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
by
75
percent
or
more
using
NSCR.
i.
Select
the
sampling
port
location
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
and
(
1)
Method
1
or
1A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
§
63.7(
d)(
1)(
i).
(
a)
Sampling
sites
must
be
located
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
NSCR.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77869
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS
 
Continued
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6610,
63.6620,
and
63.6640,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
requirements
for
performance
tests]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.
Using
.
.
.
According
to
the
following
requirements
.
.
.

ii.
Measure
O2
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
control
device.
and
(
1)
Method
3A
and
3B
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
(
a)
Measurements
to
determine
O2
concentration
must
be
made
at
the
same
time
as
the
measurements
for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iii.
Measure
moisture
content
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
NSCR.
and
(
1)
Method
4
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
(
a)
Measurements
to
determine
moisture
content
must
be
made
at
the
same
time
and
location
as
the
measurements
for
formaldehyde
concentration
iv.
Measure
formaldehyde
at
the
inlet
and
the
outlet
of
the
NSCR.
(
1)
Method
320
or
323
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A,
EPA
SW
 
846
Method
0011
or
Method
CARB
430
a.
(
a)
Formaldehyde
concentration
must
be
at
15
percent
O2,
dry
basis.
Results
of
this
test
consist
of
the
average
of
the
three
1­
hour
or
longer
runs.
3.
Stationary
RICE
............
a.
Limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
i.
Select
the
sampling
port
location
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
and
(
1)
Method
1
or
1A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
§
63.7(
d)(
1)(
i).
(
a)
If
using
a
control
device
the
sampling
site
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
ii.
Determine
the
O2
concentration
of
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
at
the
sampling
port
location
and
(
1)
Method
3A
or
3B
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
(
a)
Measurements
to
determine
O2
concentration
must
be
made
at
the
same
time
and
location
as
the
measurements
for
formaldehyde
concentration
iii.
Measure
moisture
content
of
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust
at
the
sampling
port
location.
and
(
1)
Method
4
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
(
a)
Measurements
to
determine
moisture
content
must
be
made
at
the
same
time
and
location
as
the
measurements
for
formaldehyde
concentration
iv.
Measure
formaldehyde
at
the
exhaust
of
the
stationary
RICE.
(
1)
Method
320
or
323
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A;
or
Method
CARB
430
a
(
spark
ignition
4SRB
stationary
RICE
only);
or
EPA
SW
 
846
Method
0011.
(
a)
The
stationary
RICE
must
be
operating
at
the
lowest
operating
load
at
which
you
will
operate
the
stationary
RICE;
and
Formaldehyde
concentration
must
be
at
15
percent
O2,
dry
basis.
Results
of
this
test
consist
of
the
average
of
the
three
1­
hour
or
longer
runs.

a
You
may
obtain
a
copy
of
ARB
Method
430
from
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Air
Resources
Board,
2020
L
Street,
Sacramento
CA
95812,
or
you
may
download
a
copy
of
ARB
Method
430
from
ARB's
web
site
(
http://
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
testmeth/
vol3/
vol3.
htm).
b
You
may
also
use
Methods
3A
and
10
as
options
to
ASTM
 
D6522
 
00.
You
may
obtain
a
copy
of
ASTM
 
D6522
 
00
from
at
least
one
of
the
following
addresses:
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials,
100
Barr
Harbor
Drive,
West
Conshohochen,
PA
19428
 
2959,
or
University
Microfilms
International,
300
North
Zeeb
Road,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48106.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77870
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITATIONS
[
As
stated
in
§
§
63.6625
and
63.6630,
you
must
initially
comply
with
the
emission
and
operating
limitations
as
required
by
the
following]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
<
5000.
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
oxidation
catalyst.
i.
The
average
reduction
of
emissions
of
CO
determined
from
the
initial
performance
test
achieves
the
required
CO
percent
reduction;
and
ii.
You
have
installed
a
CPMS
to
continuously
monitor
catalyst
pressure
drop
and
catalyst
inlet
temperature
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6625(
b);
and
iii.
You
have
recorded
the
catalyst
pressure
drop
and
catalyst
inlet
temperature
during
the
initial
performance
test.
2.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
 
5000.
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
oxidation
catalyst.
i.
You
have
installed
a
CEMS
to
continuously
monitor
CO
and
either
O2
or
CO2
at
both
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
oxidation
catalyst
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
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
§
63.6620
equals
or
exceeds
the
required
percent
reduction.
The
initial
test
comprises
the
first
4­
hour
period
after
successful
validation
of
the
CEMS.
Compliance
is
based
on
the
average
percent
reduction
achieved
during
the
4­
hour
period.
3.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
........................
a.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
if
using
NSCR.
i.
The
average
reduction
of
emissions
of
formaldehyde
determined
from
the
initial
performance
test
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
required
formaldehyde
percent
reduction
and
ii.
You
have
installed
a
CPMS
to
continuously
monitor
catalyst
pressure
drop
and
catalyst
temperature
rise
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6625(
b);
and
iii.
You
have
recorded
the
catalyst
pressure
drop,
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
catalyst
temperature
rise
during
the
initial
performance
test.
4.
Stationary
RICE
..................................
a.
Limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
i.
The
average
formaldehyde
concentration,
corrected
to
15
percent
O2,
dry
basis,
from
the
three
test
runs
is
less
than
or
equal
to
the
formaldehyde
emission
limitation;
and
ii.
You
have
installed
a
CPMS
to
continuously
monitor
stationary
RICE
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6625(
b);
and
iii.
You
have
recorded
the
average
stationary
RICE
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
rate
during
the
initial
performance
test.

TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITATIONS
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6640,
you
must
continuously
comply
with
the
emissions
and
operating
limitations
as
required
by
the
following]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

1.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
<
5000.
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
ozidation
catalyst.
i.
Conducting
quarterly
performance
tests
for
CO
to
demonstrate
that
the
required
CO
percent
reduction
is
achieved;
and
ii.
Collecting
the
catalyst
pressure
drop
and
catalyst
inlet
temperature
data
according
to
§
63.6625(
b);
and
iii.
Reducing
these
data
to
4­
hour
rolling
averages;
and
iv.
Maintaining
the
4­
hour
rolling
averages
within
the
operating
limitations
for
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst
and
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
2.
2SLB
and
4SLB
stationary
RICE
and
CI
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
 
5000.
a.
Reduce
CO
emissions
if
using
an
oxidation
catalyst.
i.
Collecting
the
monitoring
data
according
to
§
63.6625(
a),
reducing
the
measurements
to
1­
hour
averages,
calculating
the
percent
reduction
of
CO
emissions
according
to
§
63.6620;
and
ii.
Demonstrating
that
the
oxidation
catalyst
achieves
the
required
percent
reduction
of
CO
emissions
over
the
4­
hour
averaging
period;
and
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77871
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
AND
OPERATING
LIMITATIONS
 
Continued
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6640,
you
must
continuously
comply
with
the
emissions
and
operating
limitations
as
required
by
the
following]

For
each
.
.
.
Complying
with
the
requirement
to
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

iii.
Conducting
an
annual
RATA
of
your
CEMS
using
PS
3
and
4A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B,
as
well
as
daily
and
periodic
data
quality
checks
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
F,
procedure
1.
3.
Spark
ignition,
4SRB
stationary
RICE
a.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
if
using
NSCR.
i.
Collecting
the
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
the
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
data
according
to
§
63.6625(
b);
and
ii.
Reducing
these
data
to
4­
hour
rolling
averages;
and
iii.
Maintaining
the
4­
hour
rolling
averages
within
the
operating
limitations
for
pressure
drop
across
the
catalyst,
the
catalyst
inlet
temperature
and
temperature
rise
across
the
catalyst
established
during
the
performance
test.
4.
4SRB
stationary
RICE
with
a
brake
horsepower
 
5000.
Reduce
formaldehyde
emissions
if
using
NSCR.
Conducting
semiannual
performance
tests
for
formaldehyde
to
demonstrate
that
the
required
formaldehyde
percent
reduction
horsepower
is
achieved
a
5.
Stationary
RICE
..................................
a.
Limit
the
concentration
of
formaldehyde
in
the
stationary
RICE
exhaust.
i.
Conducting
semiannual
performance
tests
for
formaldehyde
to
demonstrate
that
your
emissions
remain
at
or
below
the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit
a;
and
ii.
Collecting
the
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
data;
and
iii.
Reducing
operating
load
or
fuel
flow
data
to
4­
hour
rolling
averages;
and
iv.
Maintaining
the
4­
hour
rolling
averages
equal
to
or
greater
than
95
percent
of
the
operating
limitations
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.

a
After
you
have
demonstrated
compliance
for
two
consecutive
tests,
you
may
reduce
the
frequency
of
subsequent
performance
tests
to
annually
If
the
results
of
any
subsequent
annual
performance
test
indicate
the
stationary
RICE
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
formaldehyde
emission
limitation,
or
you
deviate
from
any
of
your
operating
limitations,
you
must
resume
semiannual
performance
tests.

TABLE
7
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REPORTS
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6650,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
requirements
for
reports]

You
must
submit
a
(
n)
The
report
must
contain
.
.
.
You
must
submit
the
report
.
.
.

1.
Compliance
report
..............................
a.
If
there
are
no
deviations
from
any
emission
limitations
or
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
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
not
periods
during
which
the
CMS
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
or
i.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6650(
b).

b.
If
you
had
a
deviation
from
any
emission
limitation
or
operating
limitation
during
the
reporting
period,
the
information
in
§
63.6650(
d).
If
there
were
periods
during
which
the
CMS,
including
CEMS
and
CPMS,
was
out­
of­
control,
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
the
information
in
§
63.6650(
e).
or
i.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6650(
b).

c.
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period,
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
i.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6650(
b).
2.
An
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
if
you
had
a
startup
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period.
a.
Actions
taken
for
the
event
...............................................
and
i.
by
fax
or
telephone
within
2
working
days
after
starting
actions
inconsistent
with
the
plan.

b.
The
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)
....................................
i.
By
letter
within
7
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event
unless
you
have
made
alternative
arrangements
with
the
permitting
authorities.
(
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
30
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77872
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6665,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
applicable
general
provisions:]

General
provisions
citation
Subject
of
citation
Applies
to
Subpart
Explanation
1.
§
63.1
.........................................
General
applicability
of
the
General
Provisions.
Yes.

2.
§
63.2
.........................................
Definitions
.....................................
Yes
................................................
Additional
terms
defined
in
§
63.6675.
3.
§
63.3
.........................................
Units
and
abbreviations
................
Yes.
4.
§
63.4
.........................................
Prohibited
activities
and
circumvention
Yes.

5.
§
63.5
.........................................
Construction
and
reconstruction
...
Yes.
6.
§
63.6(
a)
.....................................
Applicability
...................................
Yes.
7.
§
63.6(
b)(
1)
 
(
4)
..........................
Compliance
dates
for
new
and
reconstructed
sources.
Yes.

8.
§
63.6(
b)(
5)
................................
Notification
....................................
Yes.
9.
§
63.6(
b)(
6)
................................
[
Reserved]
....................................
Yes.
10.
§
63.6(
b)(
7)
..............................
Compliance
dates
for
new
and
reconstructed
area
sources
that
become
major
sources.
Yes.

11.
§
63.6(
c)(
1)
 
(
2)
........................
Compliance
dates
for
existing
sources.
Yes.

12.
§
63.6(
c)(
3)
 
(
4)
........................
[
Reserved]
....................................
Yes.
13.
§
63.6(
c)(
5)
...............................
Compliance
dates
for
existing
area
sources
that
become
major
sources.
Yes.

14.
§
63.6(
d)
...................................
[
Reserved]
....................................
Yes.
15.
§
63.6(
e)(
1)
 
(
2)
........................
Operation
and
maintenance
.........
Yes.
16.
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
..............................
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
No
.................................................
No
requirement
for
a
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan.
17.
§
63.6(
f)(
1)
...............................
Applicability
of
standards
except
during
startup
shutdown
malfunction
(
SSM).
Yes.

18.
§
63.6(
f)(
2)
...............................
Methods
for
determining
compliance
Yes.

19.
§
63.6(
f)(
3)
...............................
Finding
of
compliance
..................
Yes.
20.
§
63.6(
g)(
1)
 
(
3)
........................
Use
of
alternate
standard
.............
Yes.
21.
§
63.6(
h)
...................................
Opacity
and
visible
emission
standards.
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
contain
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
22.
§
63.6(
i)
....................................
Compliance
extension
procedures
and
criteria.
Yes.

23.
§
63.6(
j)
....................................
Presidential
compliance
exemption
Yes.

24.
§
63.7(
a)(
1)
 
(
2)
........................
Performance
test
dates
................
Yes.
25.
§
63.7(
a)(
3)
..............................
Section
114
authority
....................
Yes.
26.
§
63.7(
b)(
1)
..............................
Notification
of
performance
test
...
Yes.
27.
§
63.7(
b)(
2)
..............................
Notification
of
rescheduling
..........
Yes.
28.
§
63.7(
c)
...................................
Quality
assurance/
test
plan
..........
Yes.
29.
§
63.7(
d)
...................................
Testing
facilities
............................
Yes.
30.
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
..............................
Conditions
for
conducting
performance
tests.
Yes
................................................
Except
that
testing
is
required
under
lowest
load
conditions
for
some
regulatory
alternatives.
31.
§
63.7(
e)(
2)
..............................
Conditions
for
conducting
performance
tests.
Yes.

32.
§
63.7(
e)(
3)
..............................
Test
run
duration
..........................
Yes.
33.
§
63.7(
e)(
4)
..............................
Administrator
may
require
other
testing
under
section
114
of
the
CAA.
Yes.

34.
§
63.7(
f)
....................................
Alternative
test
method
provisions
Yes.
35.
§
63.7(
g)
...................................
Performance
test
data
analysis,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting.
Yes.

36.
§
63.7(
h)
...................................
Waiver
of
tests
..............................
Yes.
37.
§
63.8(
a)(
1)
..............................
Applicability
of
monitoring
requirements
Yes
................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
contains
specific
requirements
for
monitoring
at
§
63.6625.
38.
§
63.8(
a)(
2)
..............................
Performance
specifications
..........
Yes.
39.
§
63.8(
a)(
3)
..............................
[
Reserved].
40.
§
63.8(
a)(
4)
..............................
Monitoring
with
flares
...................
No.
41.
§
63.8(
b)(
1)
..............................
Monitoring
.....................................
Yes.
42.
§
63.8(
b)(
2)
 
(
3)
........................
Multiple
effluents
and
multiple
monitoring
systems.
Yes.

43.
§
63.8(
c)(
1)
...............................
Monitoring
system
operation
and
maintenance.
Yes.

44.
§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
i)
...........................
Routine
and
predictable
SSM
......
Yes.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77873
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
 
Continued
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6665,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
applicable
general
provisions:]

General
provisions
citation
Subject
of
citation
Applies
to
Subpart
Explanation
45.
§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
ii)
...........................
SSM
not
in
Startup
Shutdown
Malfunction
Plan.
Yes.

46.
§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
iii)
..........................
Compliance
with
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.
Yes.

47.
§
63.8(
c)(
2)
 
(
3)
........................
Monitoring
system
installation
......
Yes.
48.
§
63.8(
c)(
4)
...............................
Continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
requirements.
Yes
................................................
Except
that
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
require
Continuous
Opacity
Monitoring
System
(
COMS).
49.
§
63.8(
c)(
5)
...............................
COMS
minimum
procedures
........
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
require
COMS.
50.
§
63.8(
c)(
6)
 
(
8)
........................
CMS
requirements
........................
Yes
................................................
Except
that
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
require
COMS.
51.
§
63.8(
d)
...................................
CMS
quality
control
......................
Yes.
52.
§
63.8(
e)
...................................
CMS
performance
evaluation
.......
Yes
................................................
Except
for
§
63.8(
e)(
5)(
ii),
which
applies
to
COMS.
53.
§
63.8(
f)(
1)
 
(
5)
.........................
Alternative
monitoring
method
......
Yes.
54.
§
63.8(
f)(
6)
...............................
Alternative
to
relative
accuracy
test.
Yes.

55.
§
63.8(
g)
...................................
Data
reduction
..............................
Yes
................................................
Except
that
provisions
for
COMS
are
not
applicable.
Averaging
periods
for
demonstrating
compliance
are
specified
at
§
§
63.6635
and
63.6640.
56.
§
63.9(
a)
...................................
Applicability
and
State
delegation
of
notification
requirements.
Yes.

57.
§
63.9(
b)(
1)
 
(
5)
........................
Initial
notifications
.........................
Yes.
58.
§
63.9(
c)
...................................
Request
for
compliance
extension
Yes.
59.
§
63.9(
d)
...................................
Notification
of
special
compliance
requirements
for
new
sources.
Yes.

60.
§
63.9(
e)
...................................
Notification
of
performance
test
...
Yes.
61.
§
63.9(
f)
....................................
Notification
of
visible
emission
(
VE)/
opacity
test.
No.

62.
§
63.9(
g)(
1)
..............................
Notification
of
performance
evaluation
Yes.

63.
§
63.9(
g)(
2)
..............................
Notification
of
use
of
COMS
data
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
contain
opacity
or
VE
standards.
64.
§
63.9(
g)(
3)
..............................
Notification
that
criterion
for
alternative
to
RATA
is
exceeded.
Yes
................................................
If
alternative
is
in
use.

65.
§
63.9(
h)(
1)
 
(
6)
........................
Notification
of
compliance
status
..
Yes
................................................
Except
that
notifications
for
sources
using
a
CEMS
are
due
30
days
after
completion
of
performance
evaluations.
66.
§
63.9(
i)
....................................
Adjustment
of
submittal
deadlines
Yes.
67.
§
63.9(
j)
....................................
Change
in
previous
information
...
Yes.
68.
§
63.10(
a)
.................................
Administrative
provisions
for
record
keeping/
reporting.
Yes.

69.
§
63.10(
b)(
1)
............................
Record
retention
...........................
Yes.
70.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
i)
 
(
v)
...................
Records
related
to
SSM
...............
Yes.
71.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vi)
 
(
xi)
................
Records
........................................
Yes.
72.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xii)
.......................
Record
when
under
waiver
..........
Yes.
73.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
......................
Records
when
using
alternative
to
RATA.
Yes
................................................
For
CO
standard
if
using
RATA
alternative.
74.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv)
......................
Records
of
supporting
documentation
Yes.

75.
§
63.10(
b)(
3)
............................
Records
of
applicability
determination
Yes.

76.
§
63.10(
c)
.................................
Additional
records
for
sources
using
CEMS.
Yes.

77.
§
63.10(
d)(
1)
............................
General
reporting
requirements
...
Yes.
78.
§
63.10(
d)(
2)
............................
Report
of
performance
test
results
Yes.
79.
§
63.10(
d)(
3)
............................
Reporting
opacity
or
VE
observations
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
contain
opacity
or
VE
standards.
80.
§
63.10(
d)(
4)
............................
Progress
reports
...........................
Yes.
81.
§
63.10(
d)(
5)
............................
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
reports.
Yes.

82.
§
63.10(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)(
i)
.............
Additional
CMS
reports
................
Yes.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
13
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
77874
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
244
/
Thursday,
December
19,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
OF
PART
63
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
ZZZZ
 
Continued
[
As
stated
in
§
63.6665,
you
must
comply
with
the
following
applicable
general
provisions:]

General
provisions
citation
Subject
of
citation
Applies
to
Subpart
Explanation
83.
§
63.10(
e)(
2)(
ii)
........................
COMS­
related
report
....................
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
require
COMS.
84.
§
63.10(
e)(
3)
............................
Excess
emission
and
parameter
exceedances
reports.
Yes.

85.
§
63.10(
e)(
4)
............................
Reporting
COMS
data
..................
No
.................................................
Subpart
ZZZZ,
40
CFR
part
63,
does
not
require
COMS.
86.
§
63.10(
f)
..................................
Waiver
for
recordkeeping/
reporting
Yes.

87.
§
63.11
.....................................
Flares
............................................
No.
88.
§
63.12
.....................................
State
authority
and
delegations
....
Yes.
89.
§
63.13
.....................................
Addresses
.....................................
Yes.
90.
§
63.14
.....................................
Incorporation
by
reference
...........
Yes.
91.
§
63.15
.....................................
Availability
of
information
..............
Yes.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31232
Filed
12
 
18
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
16:
32
Dec
18,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19DEP2.
SGM
19DEP2
