9648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–9115–7] 

RIN 2060–AP36 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for existing stationary 

compression ignition reciprocating 

internal combustion engines that either 

are located at area sources of hazardous 

air pollutant emissions or that have a 

site rating of less than or equal to 500 

brake horsepower and are located at 

major sources of hazardous air pollutant 

emissions. In addition, EPA is 

promulgating national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for existing non-emergency stationary 

compression ignition engines greater 

than 500 brake horsepower that are 

located at major sources of hazardous 

air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is 

revising the provisions related to 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction for 

the engines that were regulated 

previously by these national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708. EPA 

also relies on materials in Docket ID 

Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0059, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2005–0029, and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0030 and incorporates those 

dockets into the record for the final rule. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Headquarters Library, 

Room Number 3334, EPA West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room hours of operation will 

be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (EST), Monday through 

Friday. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 

541–2469; facsimile number (919) 541– 

5450; e-mail address 

king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background Information Document. On 

March 5, 2009 (71 FR 9698), EPA 

proposed national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for existing stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (RICE) that 

either are located at area sources of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emissions or that have a site rating of 

less than or equal to 500 brake 

horsepower (HP) and are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions. In 

addition, EPA proposed national 

emission standards for HAP for existing 

stationary compression ignition (CI) 

engines greater than 500 brake HP that 

are located at major sources. A summary 

of the public comments on the proposal 

and EPA’s responses to the comments, 

as well as the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Report, are available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708. 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final 

decision for spark ignition engines? 

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What is the source category regulated by 

the final rule? 

B. What are the pollutants regulated by the 

final rule? 

C. What are the final requirements? 

D. What are the operating limitations? 

E. What are the requirements for 

demonstrating compliance? 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since 

Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Final Emission Standards 

C. Management Practices 

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

E. Other 

V. Summary of Responses to Major 

Comments 

A. Applicability 

B. Final Emission Requirements 

C. Management Practices 

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

E. Emergency Engines 

F. Emissions Data 

G. Final Rule Impacts 

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action include: 

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry using a stationary internal combustion engine as 

defined in this final rule.

2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 

622110 Medical and surgical hospitals. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9649 

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your engine is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria of this final rule. If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of this final 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by May 3, 2010. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 

objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by 

this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final 

decision for spark ignition engines? 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

for this rule, published on March 5, 

2009, EPA proposed the NESHAP for all 

existing stationary RICE located at area 

sources of HAP emissions and existing 

stationary RICE that had a site rating of 

less than or equal to 500 brake HP and 

located at major sources of HAP 

emissions. Also, EPA proposed 

NESHAP for existing stationary CI 

engines greater than 500 brake HP 

located at major sources. 

During the comment period following 

the proposal, EPA received a number of 

comments stating that EPA had 

insufficient emissions data for existing 

spark ignition (SI) engines. Because 

commenters believed that EPA had 

inadequate emissions data for SI 

engines, they suggested that EPA should 

consider seeking an extension of its 

February 10, 2010 consent decree 

deadline to allow additional time for the 

collection of emissions data for SI 

engines. Several commenters indicated 

that they would work with EPA to 

gather the necessary test data to obtain 

adequate and sufficient emissions tests 

for SI engines. Among other things, the 

commenters noted that developing the 

final requirements for SI engines later in 

2010 would provide sufficient time for 

industry to develop test programs, 

conduct testing of engines, assemble test 

results, and submit the complete results 

to EPA for review. Other commenters 

requested that EPA seek a one year 

extension of its consent decree deadline 

for SI engines, which would mean a 

final rule for these engines by February 

10, 2011. 

In consideration of the comments, 

EPA sought and obtained a six month 

extension of its February 10, 2010 

deadline for SI engines. EPA maintains 

that this period is sufficient for the 

commenters to provide additional test 

data for the SI engines. Thus, pursuant 

to the revised consent decree between 

EPA and Sierra Club, EPA will finalize 

requirements for existing stationary SI 

engines that are less than or equal to 500 

HP and located at major sources of HAP 

emissions and existing stationary SI 

engines that are located at area sources 

of HAP emissions by August 10, 2010. 

For these reasons, this final rule does 

not contain standards for existing 

stationary SI engines that are less than 

or equal to 500 HP and located at major 

sources of HAP emissions and existing 

stationary SI engines that are located at 

area sources of HAP emissions. 

Consistent with the original consent 

decree, EPA is finalizing regulations for 

existing stationary CI engines that are 

less than or equal to 500 HP and located 

at major sources and existing stationary 

CI engines that are located at area 

sources in this final rule. EPA is also 

promulgating requirements for existing 

stationary non-emergency CI engines 

that are greater than 500 HP and located 

at major sources. 

EPA plans to continue to work with 

affected stakeholders over the next 

several months in order to obtain more 

complete emissions data for existing 

stationary SI engines. The emissions 

data collected will be analyzed and if 

EPA’s review indicates that the 

submitted data meets acceptance 

criteria, EPA will include the data in 

developing final standards. EPA will 

promulgate regulations for existing 

stationary SI engines by August 10, 

2010. 

II. Background 

This action promulgates NESHAP for 

existing stationary CI RICE with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources, existing nonemergency CI engines with a site rating 

greater than 500 HP at major sources, 

and existing stationary CI RICE of any 

power rating located at area sources. 

EPA is finalizing these standards to 

meet its statutory obligation to address 

HAP emissions from these sources 

under sections 112(d), 112(c)(3) and 

112(k) of the CAA. The final NESHAP 

for stationary RICE will be promulgated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 

which already contains standards 

applicable to new stationary RICE and 

some existing stationary RICE. 

EPA promulgated NESHAP for 

existing, new, and reconstructed 

stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources on June 15, 

2004 (69 FR 33474). EPA promulgated 

NESHAP for new and reconstructed 

stationary RICE that are located at area 

sources of HAP emissions and for new 

and reconstructed stationary RICE that 

have a site rating of less than or equal 

to 500 HP that are located at major 

sources of HAP emissions on January 

18, 2008 (73 FR 3568). At that time, EPA 

did not promulgate final requirements 

for existing stationary RICE that are 

located at area sources of HAP 

emissions or for existing stationary RICE 

that have a site rating of less than or 

equal to 500 HP that are located at major 

sources of HAP emissions. Although 

EPA proposed standards for these 

sources, EPA did not finalize these 

standards due to comments received 

indicating that the proposed Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

determinations for existing sources were 

inappropriate because of a decision by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007, 

which vacated EPA’s MACT standards 

for the Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing source category 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ). Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 

2007). Among other things, the DC 

Circuit found that EPA’s no emission 

reduction MACT determination in the 

challenged rule was unlawful. Because 

EPA had used a MACT floor 

methodology in the proposed stationary 

RICE rule similar to the methodology 

used in the Brick MACT, EPA decided 

to re-evaluate the MACT floors for 

existing major sources that have a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP consistent with the Court’s decision 

in the Brick MACT case. Also, EPA has 

re-evaluated the standards for existing 

area sources in light of the comments 

received on the proposed rule. 

In addition, stakeholders have 

encouraged the Agency to review 

whether there are further ways to reduce 

emissions of pollutants from existing 

stationary diesel engines. In its 

comments on EPA’s 2005 proposed rule 

for new stationary diesel engines (70 FR 

39870), the Environmental Defense 

Fund (EDF) suggested several possible 

avenues for the regulation of existing 

stationary diesel engines, including use 

of diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed 

diesel particulate filters (CDPF), as well 

as the use of ultra low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD) fuel. EDF suggested that such 

controls can provide significant 

pollution reductions at reasonable cost. 

EPA issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in 

January 2008, where it solicited 

comment on several issues concerning 

options to regulate emissions of 

pollutants from existing stationary 

diesel engines, generally, and 

specifically from larger, older stationary 

diesel engines. EPA solicited comment 

and collected information to aid 

decision-making related to the reduction 

of HAP emissions from existing 

stationary diesel engines and 

specifically from larger, older engines 

under CAA section 112 authorities. The 

Agency sought comment on the larger, 

older non-emergency CI engines because 

available data indicate that those 

engines emit the majority of particulate 

matter (PM) and toxic emissions from 

non-emergency stationary CI engines as 

a whole. A summary of comments and 

responses that were received on the 

ANPRM is included in docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0995. EPA proposed 

and is finalizing emissions reductions 

from existing non-emergency stationary 

diesel engines at major sources that 

have a site rating greater than 500 HP. 

This action also revises the provisions 

of the existing NESHAP as it applies to 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. This revision affects all 

stationary engines regulated in this 

NESHAP, including stationary engines 

that were regulated by the 2004 and 

2008 NESHAP. The revision of these 

provisions is a result of a Court decision 

that invalidated regulations related to 

startup, shutdown and malfunction in 

the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008)). 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What is the source category regulated 

by the final rule? 

This final rule addresses emissions 

from existing stationary CI engines less 

than or equal to 500 HP located at major 

sources and all existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources. This 

final rule also addresses emissions from 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 500 HP at major 

sources. A major source of HAP 

emissions is generally a stationary 

source 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. An area source of HAP emissions 

is a source that is not a major source. 

This action revises the regulations at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, currently 

applicable to new and reconstructed 

stationary RICE and to existing 

stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources. Through this 

action, we are adding to subpart ZZZZ 

requirements for: Existing CI stationary 

RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and existing CI 

stationary RICE located at area sources. 

1. Stationary CI RICE ≤500 HP at Major 

Sources 

This action revises 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ, to address HAP 

emissions from existing stationary CI 

RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources. For stationary 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP at 

major sources, EPA must determine 

what is the appropriate MACT for those 

engines under sections 112(d)(2) and 

(d)(3) of the CAA. 

EPA has divided stationary CI RICE 

into emergency and non-emergency 

engines in order to capture the unique 

differences between these types of 

engines. 

2. Stationary CI RICE at Area Sources 

This action revises 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ, in order to address HAP 

emissions from existing stationary RICE 

located at area sources. Section 112(d) 

of the CAA requires EPA to establish 

NESHAP for both major and area 

sources of HAP that are listed for 

regulation under CAA section 112(c). As 

noted above, an area source is a 

stationary source that is not a major 

source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, 

as a result of emissions of area sources, 

pose the greatest threat to public health 

in the largest number of urban areas. 

EPA implemented this provision in 

1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). 

Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA 

identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, 

and these HAP are referred to as the ‘‘30 

urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) of the 

CAA requires EPA to list sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. EPA implemented these 

requirements through the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, 

July 19, 1999). The area source 

stationary engine source category was 

one of the listed categories. A primary 

goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 

percent reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9651 

1 In contrast, mobile source emission standards 

for diesel engines (both nonroad and on-highway) 

are promulgated on a mass/bhp-hr basis rather than 

concentration. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA 

may elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices by such sources 

to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ Additional information on 

generally available control technologies 

(GACT) and management practices is 

found in the Senate report on the 

legislation (Senate report Number 101– 

228, December 20, 1989), which 

describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

EPA can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have many small 

businesses. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. EPA also 

considers the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, EPA may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as EPA has 

already noted, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, EPA 

considers the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

The urban HAP that must be regulated 

at stationary RICE to achieve the CAA 

section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate 

categories accounting for 90 percent of 

the urban HAP are: 7 polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, arsenic, 

benzene, beryllium compounds, and 

cadmium compounds. As explained 

below, EPA chose to select 

formaldehyde to serve as a surrogate for 

HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the 

hazardous air pollutant present in the 

highest concentration from stationary 

engines. In addition, emissions data 

show that formaldehyde emission levels 

are related to other HAP emission 

levels. EPA has previously 

demonstrated that carbon monoxide 

(CO) is an appropriate surrogate for 

formaldehyde and is consequently 

finalizing emission standards in terms 

of CO for existing stationary CI RICE at 

area sources. 

Consistent with existing stationary CI 

RICE at major sources, EPA has also 

divided the existing stationary CI RICE 

at area sources into emergency and nonemergency engines in order to properly 

take into account the differences 

between these engines. 

3. Stationary CI RICE > 500 HP at Major 

Sources 

In addition, EPA is finalizing 

emission standards for non-emergency 

stationary CI engines greater than 500 

HP at major sources. 

B. What are the pollutants regulated by 

the final rule? 

The final rule regulates emissions of 

HAP. Available emissions data show 

that several HAP, which are formed 

during the combustion process or which 

are contained within the fuel burned, 

are emitted from stationary engines. The 

HAP which have been measured in 

emission tests conducted on diesel fired 

stationary RICE include: 1, 3-butadiene, 

acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 

ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, 

naphthalene, PAH, polycyclic organic 

matter, styrene, toluene, and xylene. 

Metallic HAP from diesel fired 

stationary RICE that have been 

measured include: Cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, 

nickel, and selenium. 

EPA described the health effects of 

these HAP and other HAP emitted from 

the operation of stationary RICE in the 

preamble to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, published on June 15, 2004 (69 

FR 33474). More detail on the health 

effects of these HAP and other HAP 

emitted from the operation of stationary 

RICE can be found in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final rule. 

These HAP emissions are known to 

cause, or contribute significantly to air 

pollution, which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. 

The final rule will limit emissions of 

HAP through emissions standards for 

CO for existing stationary CI RICE. 

Carbon monoxide has been shown to be 

an appropriate surrogate for HAP 

emissions from CI engines. For the 

NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA 

found that there is a relationship 

between CO emissions reductions and 

HAP emissions reductions from CI 

stationary engines. Therefore, because 

testing for CO emissions has many 

advantages over testing for HAP 

emissions, CO emissions were chosen as 

a surrogate for HAP emissions 

reductions for CI stationary engines. 

For the standards being finalized in 

this action, EPA believes that previous 

decisions regarding the appropriateness 

of using CO in concentration (parts per 

million (ppm)) levels as has been done 

for stationary sources before as 

surrogates for HAP are still valid.1

Consequently, EPA is finalizing 

emission standards for CO for stationary 

CI engines in order to regulate HAP 

emissions. In addition, EPA is 

promulgating separate provisions 

relevant to emissions of metallic HAP 

from existing diesel engines, as 

discussed in section III.C. of this 

preamble. 

In addition to reducing HAP and CO, 

the final rule will result in the reduction 

of PM emissions from existing 

stationary diesel engines. The 

aftertreatment technologies expected to 

be used to reduce HAP and CO 

emissions also reduce emissions of PM 

from diesel engines. Also, the final rule 

requires the use of ULSD for dieselfueled stationary non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 300 HP with a 

displacement of less than 30 liters per 

cylinder. This will result in lower 

emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX) and 

sulfate particulate from these engines by 

reducing the sulfur content in the fuel. 

C. What are the final requirements? 

1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major 

Sources. 

The numerical emission standards 

that are being finalized in this action for 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

located at major sources are shown in 

Table 1 of this preamble. The numerical 

emission standards are in units of ppm 

by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or percent 

reduction. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—NUMERICAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY CI RICE LOCATED AT MAJOR SOURCES

Subcategory Except during periods of startup 

Non-Emergency CI 100≤HP≤300 ............................................................. 230 ppmvd CO at 15% O2. 

Non-Emergency CI 300<HP≤500 ............................................................. 49 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction. 

Non-Emergency CI >500 HP .................................................................... 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction. 

In addition, certain existing stationary 

RICE located at major sources are 

subject to fuel requirements. Owners 

and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300 

HP with a displacement of less than 30 

liters per cylinder located at major 

sources that use diesel fuel must use 

only diesel fuel meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This 

section requires that diesel fuel have a 

maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and 

either a minimum cetane index of 40 or 

a maximum aromatic content of 35 

volume percent. These fuel 

requirements are being finalized in 

order to reduce the potential formation 

of sulfate compounds that are emitted 

when high sulfur diesel fuel is used in 

combination with oxidation catalysts 

and to assist in the efficient operation of 

the oxidation catalysts. 

EPA is finalizing work practice 

standards for existing stationary 

emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 

500 HP located at major sources and 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE less than 100 HP located at major 

sources. Existing stationary emergency 

CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources are subject to 

the following work practices: 

• Change oil and filter every 500 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, except that 

sources can extend the period for 

changing the oil if the oil is part of an 

oil analysis program as discussed below 

and none of the condemning limits are 

exceeded; 

• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first; and 

• Inspect all hoses and belts every 

500 hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE less than 100 HP located at major 

sources are subject to the following 

work practices: 

• Change oil and filter every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, except that 

sources can extend the period for 

changing the oil if the oil is part of an 

oil analysis program as discussed below 

and none of the condemning limits are 

exceeded; 

• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first; and 

• Inspect all hoses and belts every 

500 hours or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary. 

Sources also have the option to use an 

oil change analysis program to extend 

the oil change frequencies specified 

above. The analysis program must at a 

minimum analyze the following three 

parameters: Total Base Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. 

The analysis must be conducted at the 

same frequencies specified for changing 

the engine oil. If the condemning limits 

provided below are not exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator is not required 

to change the oil. If any of the 

condemning limits are exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator must change 

the oil before continuing to use the 

engine. The condemning limits are as 

follows: 

• Total Base Number is less than 30 

percent of the Total Base Number of the 

oil when new; or 

• Viscosity of the oil has changed by 

more than 20 percent from the viscosity 

of the oil when new; or 

• Percent water content (by volume) 

is greater than 0.5. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 

63.6(g), sources can also request that the 

Administrator approve alternative work 

practices. 

EPA is also including in the final rule 

additional capture and collection 

requirements to reduce metallic HAP 

emissions. Owners and operators of 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 300 HP located at 

major sources must do one of the 

following if the engine is not already 

equipped with a closed crankcase 

ventilation system: (1) Install a closed 

crankcase ventilation system that 

prevents crankcase emissions from 

being emitted to the atmosphere, or 

(2) install an open crankcase filtration 

emission control system that reduces 

emissions from the crankcase by 

filtering the exhaust stream to remove 

oil mist, particulates, and metals. 

2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area 

Sources 

The numerical emission standards 

that are being finalized in this action for 

stationary CI RICE located at area 

sources are shown in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Existing stationary emergency 

engines at area sources located at 

residential, commercial, or institutional 

facilities are not part of the source 

category and therefore are not subject to 

any requirements under this final rule. 

Although existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP 

that are located at area sources in Alaska 

that are not accessible by the Federal 

Aid Highway System (FAHS) do not 

have to meet the CO emission standards 

specified in Table 2 of this preamble, 

they must meet the management 

practices discussed in this section for 

non-emergency CI RICE less than or 

equal to 300 HP. 

TABLE 2—NUMERICAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE LOCATED AT AREA SOURCES

Subcategory Except during periods of startup 

Non-Emergency CI 300<HP≤500 ............................................................. 49 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction. 

Non-Emergency CI>500 HP ..................................................................... 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction. 

Also, owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI engines 

greater than 300 HP with a displacement 

of less than 30 liters per cylinder 

located at area sources that use diesel 

fuel must use only diesel fuel meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). 

This section requires that diesel fuel 

have a maximum sulfur content of 15 

ppm and either a minimum cetane 

index of 40 or a maximum aromatic 

content of 35 volume percent. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9653 

EPA is finalizing management 

practices for existing stationary 

emergency CI RICE located at area 

sources and existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE less than or equal to 

300 HP located at area sources. Existing 

stationary emergency CI RICE located at 

area sources are subject to the following 

management practices: 

• Change oil and filter every 500 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, except that 

sources can extend the period for 

changing the oil if the oil is part of an 

oil analysis program as discussed below 

and the condemning limits are not 

exceeded; 

• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first; and 

• Inspect all hoses and belts every 

500 hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE less than or equal to 300 HP 

located at area sources are subject to the 

following management practices: 

• Change oil and filter every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, except that 

sources can extend the period for 

changing the oil if the oil is part of an 

oil analysis program as discussed below 

and the condemning limits are not 

exceeded; 

• Inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours 

of operation or annually, whichever 

comes first; and 

• Inspect all hoses and belts every 

500 hours or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary. 

As discussed above for major sources, 

these sources may utilize an oil analysis 

program in order to extend the specified 

oil change requirement specified above. 

Also, sources have the option to work 

with State permitting authorities 

pursuant to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

subpart E (‘‘Approval of State Programs 

and Delegation of Federal Authorities’’) 

for approval of alternative management 

practices. Subpart E implements section 

112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes 

EPA to approve alternative State/local/ 

Tribal HAP standards or programs when 

such requirements are demonstrated to 

be no less stringent than EPA 

promulgated standards. 

Finally, in order to reduce metallic 

HAP emissions, existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300 

HP located at area sources must do one 

of the following if the engine is not 

already equipped with a closed 

crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install 

a closed crankcase ventilation system 

that prevents crankcase emissions from 

being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2) 

install an open crankcase filtration 

emission control system that reduces 

emissions from the crankcase by 

filtering the exhaust stream to remove 

oil mist, particulates, and metals. 

3. Startup Requirements 

The following stationary engines are 

subject to specific operational standards 

during engine startup: 

• Existing CI RICE less than or equal 

to 500 HP located at major sources, 

• Existing non-emergency CI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources, 

• Existing CI RICE located at area 

sources, 

• New or reconstructed nonemergency two-stroke lean burn (2SLB) 

>500 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions, 

• New or reconstructed nonemergency four-stroke lean burn (4SLB) 

>=250 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions, 

• Existing non-emergency four-stroke 

rich burn (4SRB) >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, 

• New or reconstructed nonemergency 4SRB >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, and 

• New or reconstructed nonemergency CI >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

Engine startup is defined as the time 

from initial start until applied load and 

engine and associated equipment 

reaches steady state or normal 

operation. For stationary engines with 

catalytic controls, engine startup means 

the time from initial start until applied 

load and engine and associated 

equipment reaches steady state, or 

normal operation, including the 

catalyst. Owners and operators must 

minimize the engine’s time spent at idle 

and minimize the engine’s startup to a 

period needed for appropriate and safe 

loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 

minutes, after which time the engine 

must meet the otherwise applicable 

emission standards. These requirements 

will limit the HAP emissions during 

periods of engine startup. Pursuant to 

the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(g), 

engines at major sources may petition 

the Administrator for an alternative 

work practice. An owner or operator of 

an engine at an area source can work 

with its State permitting authority 

pursuant to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

subpart E for approval of an alternative 

management practice. See 40 CFR 

Subpart E (setting forth requirements 

for, among other things, equivalency by 

permit, rule substitution). 

D. What are the operating limitations? 

In addition to the standards discussed 

above, EPA is finalizing operating 

limitations for stationary nonemergency CI RICE that are greater than 

500 HP. Owners and operators of 

engines that are equipped with 

oxidation catalyst must maintain the 

catalyst so that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by more 

than 2 inches of water from the pressure 

drop across the catalyst that was 

measured during the initial performance 

test. Owners and operators of these 

engines must also maintain the 

temperature of the stationary RICE 

exhaust so that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is between 450 and 1350 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Owners and 

operators may petition for a different 

temperature range; the petition must 

demonstrate why it is operationally 

necessary and appropriate to operate 

below the temperature range specified 

in the rule (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)). Owners 

and operators of engines that are not 

using oxidation catalyst must comply 

with any operating limitations approved 

by the Administrator. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI engines 

greater than 300 HP meeting the 

requirement to use open or closed 

crankcases must follow the 

manufacturer’s specified maintenance 

requirements for operating and 

maintaining the open or closed 

crankcase ventilation systems and 

replacing the crankcase filters, or can 

request the Administrator to approve 

different maintenance requirements that 

are as protective as manufacturer 

requirements. 

E. What are the requirements for 

demonstrating compliance? 

The following sections describe the 

requirements for demonstrating 

compliance under the final rule. 

1. Existing Stationary CI RICE at Major 

Sources 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

located at major sources that are less 

than 100 HP and stationary emergency 

CI RICE located at major sources must 

operate and maintain their stationary 

RICE and aftertreatment control device 

(if any) according to the manufacturer’s 

emission-related written instructions or 

develop their own maintenance plan. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

located at major sources that are less 

than 100 HP and existing stationary 

emergency CI RICE located at major 

sources do not have to conduct any 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

performance testing because they are 

not subject to numerical emission 

standards. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

located at major sources that are greater 

than or equal to 100 HP and less than 

or equal to 500 HP must conduct an 

initial performance test to demonstrate 

that they are achieving the required 

emission standards. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources must conduct an initial 

performance test and must test every 

8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, 

whichever comes first, to demonstrate 

that they are achieving the required 

emission standards. 

Owners and operators of stationary 

non-emergency CI RICE that are greater 

than 500 HP and are located at a major 

source must continuously monitor and 

record the catalyst inlet temperature if 

an oxidation catalyst is being used on 

the engine. The pressure drop across the 

catalyst must also be measured monthly. 

If an oxidation catalyst is not being used 

on the engine, the owner or operator 

must continuously monitor and record 

the operating parameters (if any) 

approved by the Administrator. 

On October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59956), 

EPA proposed performance 

specification requirements for 

continuous parametric monitoring 

systems (CPMS). Currently there are no 

performance specifications for the 

CPMS that are required for continuously 

monitoring the catalyst inlet 

temperature. The timetable for finalizing 

the proposed performance specification 

requirements is uncertain; therefore, 

EPA plans to finalize performance 

specification requirements in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ for the CPMS 

systems used for continuous catalyst 

inlet temperature monitoring when the 

final requirements are promulgated for 

existing SI engines in August 2010. 

2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area 

Sources 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary RICE located at area sources 

that are subject to management 

practices, as shown in Table 2 of this 

preamble, must develop a maintenance 

plan that specifies how the management 

practices will be met. Owners and 

operators of existing stationary RICE 

that are subject to management practices 

do not have to conduct any performance 

testing. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

greater than 300 HP that are located at 

area sources must conduct an initial 

performance test to demonstrate that 

they are achieving the required emission 

standards. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE that 

are greater than 500 HP and located at 

area sources and are not limited use 

stationary RICE must conduct an initial 

performance test and must test every 

8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, 

whichever comes first, to demonstrate 

that they are achieving the required 

emission standards. Owners and 

operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE that are greater than 

500 HP and located at area sources and 

are limited use stationary RICE must 

conduct an initial performance test and 

must test every 8,760 hours of operation 

or 5 years, whichever comes first, to 

demonstrate that they are achieving the 

required emission standards. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE that 

are greater than 500 HP and are located 

at an area source must continuously 

monitor and record the catalyst inlet 

temperature if an oxidation catalyst is 

being used on the engine. The pressure 

drop across the catalyst must also be 

measured monthly. If an oxidation 

catalyst is not being used on the engine, 

the owner or operator must 

continuously monitor and record the 

operating parameters (if any) approved 

by the Administrator. 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

The following sections describe the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements that are required under the 

final rule. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE that do not 

meet the requirements for nonemergency engines are required to keep 

records of their hours of operation. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE must install 

a non-resettable hour meter on their 

engines to record the hours of operation 

of the engine. Emergency stationary 

RICE may be operated for the purpose 

of maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, provided that the tests are 

recommended by the Federal, State or 

local government, the manufacturer, the 

vendor, or the insurance company 

associated with the engine. Maintenance 

checks and readiness testing of such 

units are limited to 100 hours per year. 

There is no time limit on the use of 

emergency stationary engines in 

emergency situations; however, the 

owner or operator is required to record 

the length of operation and the reason 

the engine was in operation during that 

time. Records must be maintained 

documenting why the engine was 

operating to ensure the 100 hours per 

year limit for maintenance and testing 

operation is not exceeded. In addition, 

owners and operators are allowed to 

operate their stationary emergency RICE 

for non-emergency purposes for 50 

hours per year, but those 50 hours are 

counted towards the total 100 hours 

provided for operation other than for 

true emergencies. The 50 hours per year 

for non-emergency purposes cannot be 

used to generate income for a facility, 

for example, to supply power to an 

electric grid or otherwise supply power 

as part of a financial arrangement with 

another entity. However, owners and 

operators may operate the emergency 

engine for a maximum of 15 hours per 

year as part of a demand response 

program if the regional transmission 

organization or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has 

determined there are emergency 

conditions that could lead to a potential 

electrical blackout, for example 

unusually low frequency, equipment 

overload, capacity or energy deficiency, 

or unacceptable voltage level. The 

engine may not be operated for more 

than 30 minutes prior to the time when 

the emergency condition is expected to 

occur, and the engine operation must be 

terminated immediately after the facility 

is notified that the emergency condition 

is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per 

year of demand response operation are 

counted as part of the 50 hours of 

operation per year provided for nonemergency situations. Owners and 

operators must keep records showing 

how they were notified of the 

emergency condition and by whom, and 

the time that the engine was operated as 

part of demand response. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary CI RICE located at area 

sources that are subject to management 

practices as shown in Table 2 of this 

preamble are required to keep records 

that show that management practices 

that are required are being met. These 

records must include, at a minimum: 

Oil and filter change dates and 

corresponding hour on the hour meter; 

inspection and replacement dates for air 

cleaners, hoses, and belts; and records 

of other emission-related repairs and 

maintenance performed. 

Owners and operators of existing nonemergency stationary CI RICE greater 

than 300 HP must keep records of the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

maintenance procedures for the closed 

crankcase ventilation system or open 

crankcase filtration system and records 

of the maintenance performed on the 

system. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9655 

In terms of reporting requirements, 

owners and operators of existing 

stationary RICE, except stationary RICE 

that are less than 100 HP, existing 

emergency stationary RICE, and existing 

stationary RICE that are not subject to 

numerical emission standards, 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, and a 

notification of compliance for each 

stationary RICE which must comply 

with the specified emission limitations. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Since Proposal 

Most of the rationale used to develop 

the proposed rule remains the same for 

the final rule. Therefore, the rationale 

previously provided in the preamble to 

the proposed rule is not repeated in the 

final rule, and the rationale sections of 

the rule, as proposed, should be referred 

to. Major changes that have been made 

to the rule since proposal are discussed 

in this section with rationale following 

in the Summary of Responses to Major 

Comments section. 

A. Applicability 

EPA proposed to regulate HAP 

emissions from existing stationary 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and all existing 

stationary engines located at area 

sources. EPA also proposed NESHAP for 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 500 HP that are 

located at major sources. 

In the final rule, EPA is only 

regulating HAP emissions from existing 

stationary CI engines. EPA will address 

HAP emissions from existing stationary 

SI engines in a separate rulemaking later 

this year. 

Another change from the proposal is 

that the final rule is not applicable to 

existing stationary emergency engines at 

area sources that are located at 

residential, commercial, or institutional 

facilities. These engines are not subject 

to any requirements under the final rule 

because they are not part of the 

regulated source category. EPA has 

found that existing stationary 

emergency engines located at 

residential, commercial, and 

institutional facilities that are area 

sources were not included in the 

original Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

inventory and were not included in the 

listing of urban area sources. More 

information on this issue can be found 

in the memorandum entitled, ‘‘Analysis 

of the Types of Engines Used to 

Estimate the CAA Section 112(k) Area 

Source Inventory for Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines,’’ available from the rulemaking 

docket. 

B. Final Emission Standards 

1. Existing Stationary CI Engines <100 

HP Located at Major Sources 

For the proposed rule, EPA required 

existing stationary engines less than 50 

HP that are located at major sources to 

meet a formaldehyde emission standard. 

EPA is not finalizing a formaldehyde 

emission standard for stationary CI 

engines less than 50 HP, but is instead 

requiring compliance with a work 

practice. In addition, in light of several 

comments asserting that the level at 

which we subcategorized small engines 

at major sources was inappropriate, EPA 

is finalizing a work practice standard for 

engines less than 100 HP. 

In the proposed rule, existing 

stationary CI engines less than 100 HP 

located at major sources were required 

to meet a 40 ppmvd CO at 15 percent 

oxygen (O2) standard. In the final rule, 

all existing stationary CI engines less 

than 100 HP located at major sources 

must meet work practices. These work 

practices are described in section III.C. 

of this preamble. EPA believes that work 

practices are appropriate and justified 

for this group of stationary engines 

because the application of measurement 

methodology is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Further information on EPA’s decision 

can be found in section V.B. below and 

in the memorandum entitled, ‘‘MACT 

Floor Determination for Existing 

Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less 

Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary 

Emergency CI RICE Located at Major 

Sources and GACT for Existing 

Stationary CI RICE Located at Area 

Sources,’’ which is available from the 

rulemaking docket. 

2. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency 

CI Engines 100≤HP≤300 

EPA is finalizing a CO emission 

standard for existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than or 

equal to 100 HP and less than or equal 

to 300 HP located at major sources of 

230 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2

standard. EPA revised the proposed CO 

standard for this group of engines based 

on additional information and data 

received after the proposal, which led to 

a reevaluation of the MACT floor for 

these stationary engines. A discussion of 

the final MACT floor determination can 

be found in the memo entitled ‘‘MACT 

Floor and MACT Determination for 

Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI 

RICE Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP 

Located at Major Sources,’’ which is 

available from the rulemaking docket. 

All existing stationary CI engines less 

than or equal to 300 HP located at area 

sources, both emergency and nonemergency, are subject to management 

practice standards under the final rule, 

as was proposed. 

3. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency 

CI Engines >300 HP 

EPA proposed that existing stationary 

non-emergency CI engines greater than 

300 HP meet a 4 ppmvd CO at 15 

percent O2 standard or a 90 percent CO 

reduction standard. Numerous 

commenters indicated that EPA’s 

dataset was insufficient and urged EPA 

to gather more data to obtain a more 

complete representation of emissions 

from existing stationary CI engines. 

Commenters also questioned the 

emission standard setting approach that 

EPA used at proposal and claimed that 

the proposed standards did not take into 

account emissions variability and may 

not be achievable. For the final rule EPA 

has obtained additional test data for 

existing stationary CI engines and has 

included this additional data in the 

MACT floor analysis. EPA is also using 

an approach that better considers 

emissions variability, as discussed in 

V.B. below. 

In the final rule, EPA is providing 

owners and operators the option of 

meeting either a CO concentration or a 

CO percent reduction standard. Owners 

and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300 

HP and less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major and area sources must 

either reduce CO emissions by at least 

70 percent or limit the concentration of 

CO in the engine exhaust to 49 ppmvd, 

at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators 

of existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 500 HP located at 

major and area sources must either 

reduce CO emissions by at least 70 

percent or limit the concentration of CO 

in the engine exhaust to 23 ppmvd, at 

15 percent O2. EPA’s review of the data 

indicate that it is appropriate to base the 

MACT standard on a reduction level of 

70 percent, which takes into account the 

variability of the emission reduction 

efficiency of aftertreatment under 

various operational conditions. 

4. Existing Stationary Emergency CI 

Engines 100≤HP≤500 Located at Major 

Sources 

For existing stationary emergency 

engines located at major sources, we 

proposed that these engines be subject 

to a 40 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2

standard. In the final rule, existing 

stationary emergency CI engines greater 

than or equal to 100 HP and less than 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

or equal to 500 HP and located at major 

sources must meet work practices. 

These work practices are described in 

section III.C. of this preamble. EPA 

believes that work practices are 

appropriate and justified for this group 

of stationary engines because the 

application of measurement 

methodology is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Further information on EPA’s decision 

can be found in the memorandum 

entitled ‘‘MACT Floor Determination for 

Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI 

RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing 

Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located 

at Major Sources and GACT for Existing 

Stationary CI RICE Located at Area 

Sources,’’ which is available from the 

rulemaking docket. 

5. Existing Stationary Emergency CI 

Engines >500 HP Located at Area 

Sources 

For existing stationary emergency 

engines located at area sources, EPA 

reevaluated the information available 

for emergency engines and considered 

extensive input received from industry 

and other groups who asserted that the 

proposed standards were not GACT for 

emergency engines at area sources. In 

the final rule, as discussed below in 

section V.B., all existing stationary 

emergency CI engines located at area 

sources must meet management practice 

standards. 

C. Management Practices 

EPA proposed management practices 

for several subcategories of engines 

located at area sources. EPA explained 

that the proposed management practices 

would be expected to ensure that 

emission control systems are working 

properly and would help minimize HAP 

emissions from the engines. EPA 

proposed specific maintenance practices 

and asked for comments on the need 

and appropriateness for those 

procedures. Based on feedback received 

during the public comment period, 

which included information submitted 

in comment letters and additional 

information EPA received following the 

close of the comment period from 

different industry groups, EPA is 

finalizing management practices for 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines less than or equal to 300 HP 

located at area sources and all existing 

emergency stationary CI engines located 

at area sources. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines less than or equal to 300 HP 

located at area sources are required to 

change the oil and filter every 1,000 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and 

inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. Existing emergency 

stationary CI engines located at area 

sources are required under the final rule 

to change the oil and filter every 500 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, inspect air 

cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first, and 

inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. EPA is adding an option for 

sources to use an oil change analysis 

program to extend the oil change 

frequencies specified above. The 

analysis program must at a minimum 

analyze the following three parameters: 

Total Base Number, viscosity, and 

percent water content. If the 

condemning limits provided below are 

not exceeded, the engine owner or 

operator is not required to change the 

oil. If any of the limits are exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator must change 

the oil before continuing to use the 

engine. The condemning limits are as 

follows: 

• Total Base Number is less than 30 

percent of the Total Base Number of the 

oil when new; or 

• Viscosity of the oil has changed by 

more than 20 percent from the viscosity 

of the oil when new; or 

• Percent water content (by volume) 

is greater than 0.5. 

Owners and operators of all engines 

subject to management practices also 

have the option to work with State 

permitting authorities pursuant to EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for 

alternative maintenance practices to be 

used instead of the specific maintenance 

practices promulgated in this rule. The 

maintenance practices must be at least 

as stringent as those specified in the 

final rule. 

The final rule specifies that in 

situations where an emergency engine is 

operating during an emergency and it is 

not possible to shut down the engine in 

order to perform the work or 

management practice requirements on 

the schedule required in the final rule, 

or if performing the work or 

management practice on the required 

schedule would otherwise pose an 

unacceptable risk under Federal, State, 

or local law, the maintenance activity 

can be delayed until the emergency is 

over or the unacceptable risk under 

Federal, State, or local law has abated. 

The maintenance should be performed 

as soon as practicable after the 

emergency has ended or the 

unacceptable risk under Federal, State, 

or local law has abated. Sources must 

report any failure to perform the work 

practice on the schedule required and 

the Federal, State or local law under 

which the risk was deemed 

unacceptable. 

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

EPA proposed formaldehyde and CO 

emission standards for existing 

stationary engines at major sources to 

apply during periods of startup and 

malfunction. EPA also proposed certain 

standards for existing stationary engines 

at area sources that would apply during 

startup and malfunction. Based on 

various comments and concerns with 

the proposed emission standards for 

periods of startup, EPA has determined 

that it is not feasible to finalize 

numerical emission standards that 

would apply during startup because the 

application of measurement 

methodology to this operation is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations, as discussed in 

detail in section V.D. 

As a result, EPA is promulgating 

operational standards during startup 

that specify that owners and operators 

must limit the engine startup time to no 

more than 30 minutes and must 

minimize the engine’s time spent at idle 

during startup. Based on information 

reviewed by EPA, engine startup 

typically requires no more than 30 

minutes. We received comments 

indicating that there are conditions 

where it may take more than 30 minutes 

to startup the engine, for example for 

cold starts or where the ambient 

conditions are very cold. However, 

commenters did not provide enough 

specificity in their comments, nor did 

commenters provide data, to determine 

whether any scenarios were appropriate 

to allow a longer startup period. Owners 

and operators of engines at major 

sources have the option to petition the 

Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 

63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

Any petition must be based on specific 

factual information indicating the 

reason the alternative work practice is 

necessary for that engine and is no less 

stringent than startup requirements in 

the rule. An owner or operator of an 

engine at an area source can work with 

its State permitting authority pursuant 

to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR subpart 

E for approval of an alternative 

management practice, based on specific 

factual information indicating the 

reason that an alternative management 

practice is necessary for that engine. 

Such alternative management practice 

must be demonstrated to be no less 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9657 

stringent than EPA promulgated 

standards. 

As discussed further below, in section 

V.D., EPA is not setting separate 

standards for malfunctions in this rule. 

Therefore, the standards that apply 

during normal operation also apply 

during malfunction. EPA believes that 

any emissions occurring during a 

malfunction would be of such a short 

duration compared to the emissions 

averaged during overall testing time 

(three one-hour runs) that the engine 

would still be able to comply with the 

emission standard. In addition, EPA 

does not view malfunction as a distinct 

operating mode and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do 

not need to be taken into account in 

setting CAA section 112(d) standards. 

Further, as is explained in more detail 

in Section V.D. below, even if 

malfunctions were considered a distinct 

operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take into account 

malfunctions in setting CAA section 

112(d) standards. 

E. Other 

EPA is including an additional 

requirement in the final rule that will 

reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners 

and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300 

HP must do one of the following if the 

engine is not already equipped with a 

closed crankcase ventilation system: (1) 

Install a closed crankcase ventilation 

system that prevents crankcase 

emissions from being emitted to the 

atmosphere, or (2) install an open 

crankcase filtration emission control 

system that reduces the crankcase 

emissions by filtering the exhaust 

stream to remove oil mist, particulates, 

and metals. Owners and operators must 

follow the manufacturer’s specified 

maintenance requirements for operating 

and maintaining the open or closed 

crankcase ventilation systems and 

replacing the crankcase filters, or can 

request the Administrator to approve 

different maintenance requirements that 

are as protective as manufacturer 

requirements. 

EPA is including special provisions in 

the final rule for existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP 

located at area sources in Alaska not 

accessible by the FAHS. Owners and 

operators of these engines do not have 

to meet the CO emission standards 

specified in Table 2 of this preamble, 

but must instead meet the management 

practices that are described for 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE less 

than or equal to 300 HP in section III.C. 

of this preamble. 

The final rule specifies that stationary 

CI engines that are used to startup 

combustion turbines should meet the 

same requirements as stationary 

emergency CI engines. 

V. Summary of Responses to Major 

Comments 

A more detailed summary of 

comments and EPA’s responses can be 

found in the document entitled 

‘‘Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Existing Stationary Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines Located at 

Area Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less 

Than or Equal to 500 Brake HP Located 

at Major Sources of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions,’’ which is available 

from the rulemaking docket (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

A. Applicability 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

expressed concern over EPA’s decision 

to not distinguish between rural and 

urban engines at area sources in the 

proposed rule. Several commenters 

requested that EPA reevaluate its 

congressional authority to regulate area 

HAP sources in rural areas. The 

commenters believed that the proposal 

is inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. 

7412(n)(4)(B) [CAA section 

112(n)(4)(B)]. Commenters requested 

clarification of EPA’s rationale to 

regulate low levels of emissions from 

engines at oil and gas production 

facilities outside metropolitan areas, 

contending that EPA has applied this 

rule more broadly than the 

Congressional intent of the CAA, and 

requested that EPA reevaluate this issue 

of whether EPA can regulate rural area 

sources in light of the 42 U.S.C. 

7412(n)(4)(B) language. 

Commenters stated that EPA has 

based this rulemaking for area sources 

on sections of the CAA and its Urban 

Air Toxics Strategy that are intended to 

remove threats to public health in urban 

areas. The commenters do not believe 

that the remote RICE at area sources in 

the oil and gas industry threaten public 

health in urban areas. Several 

commenters noted that the NESHAP for 

glycol gas dehydrators (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart HH) takes into account the 

location of area sources and does not 

apply the specific requirements of the 

rule to rural area sources. The 

commenters believe that the same 

approach should be used for the RICE 

rule, i.e., engines that are not located in 

or near populated areas should be 

exempt or subject to an alternative set 

of requirements so as not to force 

expensive requirements on remote 

engines that have no impact on public 

health. 

One commenter on behalf of the 

agricultural industry expressed that the 

operational area of these engines has not 

been studied to evaluate the 

environmental benefit obtained in 

congested areas as compared to open 

agricultural locations. This commenter 

opined that there should be some 

measure of variable compliance 

provided in relation to the area of 

operation of these engines. 

Response: EPA is finalizing its 

proposal to regulate existing stationary 

CI engines located at area sources on a 

nationwide basis. EPA has not made a 

final determination with regard to 

existing SI engines at area sources, and 

will do so in the later rule finalizing 

regulations for SI engines. EPA believes 

that the CAA provides the Agency with 

the authority to regulate area sources 

nationwide. Section 112(k)(1) of the 

CAA states that ‘‘It is the purpose of this 

subsection to achieve a substantial 

reduction in emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants from area sources and an 

equivalent reduction in the public 

health risks associated with such 

sources including a reduction of not less 

than 75 per centum in the incidence of 

cancer attributable to emissions from 

such sources.’’ Consistent with this 

expressed purpose of section 112(k) of 

the CAA to reduce both emissions and 

risks, CAA section 112(k)(3)(i) requires 

that EPA list not less than 30 HAP that, 

as a result of emissions from area 

sources, present the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. Sections 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(ii) of the CAA require that EPA 

list area source categories that represent 

not less than 90 percent of the area 

source emissions of each of the listed 

HAP. Section 112(c) of the CAA requires 

that EPA issue standards for listed 

categories under CAA section 112(d). 

These relevant statutory provisions 

authorize EPA to regulate listed area 

source engines and not just engines 

located in urban areas. EPA believes 

that sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the 

CAA do not prohibit issuing area source 

rules of national applicability. EPA also 

disagrees with the statement that the 

proposal was inconsistent with section 

112(n)(4)(B) of the CAA. The term 

‘‘associated equipment’’ was defined for 

the purposes of subpart ZZZZ in the 

first RICE MACT rule not to include 

stationary RICE. EPA has not revisited 

that issue in this rule and the 

commenters have not provided 

sufficient reason to revisit that issue. 

EPA does not believe that existing 

stationary CI engines are more prevalent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

in rural areas than in urban areas. 

Indeed, EPA estimates that only 17 

percent of stationary CI area source 

engines subject to the rule are located in 

rural areas, using the definitions used in 

the Urban Air Toxics Strategy. Given the 

requirement to regulate all engines in 

the source category in urban areas, we 

do not believe requiring regulation on a 

national basis is inappropriate. 

The majority of stationary CI engines 

are used for emergency purposes. EPA 

has estimated that 80 percent of 

stationary CI engines are emergency 

engines and EPA has taken steps in the 

final rule to reduce the burden on 

owners and operators of these engines. 

All emergency CI engines located at area 

sources of HAP emissions are subject 

only to management practices under the 

final rule. EPA has also determined that 

existing emergency engines located at 

residential, institutional, and 

commercial facilities that are area 

sources of HAP emissions were not 

included in the original Urban Air 

Toxics Strategy inventory and therefore 

are not included in the source category 

listing. In the final rule, EPA has 

specified that those engines are not 

subject to subpart ZZZZ. In addition, 

existing non-emergency CI engines less 

than or equal to 300 HP that are located 

at area sources of HAP emissions are 

also only subject to management 

practices. EPA believes that requiring 

management practices instead of 

specific emission limitations and/or 

control efficiency requirements on the 

majority of existing stationary CI 

engines at area sources alleviates 

concerns regarding costly and 

burdensome requirements for rural 

sources. 

For existing stationary non-emergency 

CI engines greater than 300 HP, EPA 

determined that GACT was the use of 

oxidation catalyst control. The 

commenters did not provide a reason 

that GACT would be different for nonemergency stationary CI engines located 

in rural areas. In determining GACT, 

EPA can consider factors such as 

availability and feasibility of control 

technologies and management practices, 

as well as costs and economic impacts. 

These factors are not different for 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines in urban versus rural areas. For 

example, the availability of oxidation 

catalysts would be the same for urban 

and rural engines, and if an engine was 

in a rural location, that would not 

preclude an owner from being able to 

install aftertreatment controls. For the 

final rule, EPA estimated the capital 

cost of retrofitting an existing stationary 

non-emergency CI engine to around 

$7,000 for a 300 HP engine. Annual 

costs of operating and maintaining the 

control device are estimated to be 

approximately $2,000 per year for the 

same engine. These costs would not be 

prohibitive for any engines and either 

rural or urban areas and are expected to 

be the same no matter the location. 

Furthermore, the controls that are 

expected to be used on non-emergency 

engines above 300 HP will have the cobenefit of PM reductions. PM emissions 

can travel tens or hundreds of miles 

from their source, so emissions from 

diesel engines in rural areas can impact 

urban populations. There is also no 

reason to distinguish between the rural 

and urban area source engines that are 

subject to management practices. There 

is nothing limiting owners and 

operators of existing stationary CI 

engines located in rural areas from 

following the management practices 

specified in the final rule. 

In response to requests that 

agricultural stationary engines should 

be treated differently from other engines 

and should be allowed special 

provisions, EPA is of the understanding 

that the majority of stationary engines 

used for agricultural purposes are below 

300 HP. Several commenters 

representing agricultural interests have 

made the statement to EPA that most of 

their engines are below 300 HP. As 

previously discussed in this response, 

EPA is finalizing management practices 

for area source engines less than or 

equal to 300 HP. Therefore, it is not 

expected that many stationary 

agricultural engines will be required to 

put on controls. Agricultural engines 

less than or equal to 300 HP at rural and 

urban area sources would be required to 

follow the management practices 

specified in the final rule. Management 

practices will ensure that emissions are 

reduced and engines are properly 

operated. 

Consistent with the proposal and for 

the reasons discussed, EPA is finalizing 

national requirements for existing 

stationary CI engines without a 

distinction between urban and nonurban areas. 

Comment: Five commenters 

expressed that EPA’s proposal would 

have a significant impact to the State of 

Alaska, especially with respect to power 

generation in their rural communities. 

They explained that Alaska has unique 

regional circumstances whereby 

regulating diesel engine emissions in 

rural Alaska in the same manner as 

other engines nationwide could have 

unintended negative consequences. The 

commenters were concerned about the 

extension of section 112(k) of the CAA 

requirements to rural sources, 

expressing that the purpose of CAA 

section 112(k) is to address urban 

issues. The commenters opined that the 

scale of HAP emissions in rural areas of 

Alaska is different and should be 

addressed in a way that is appropriate 

to the rural conditions that exist there. 

The commenters expressed that, 

historically, EPA has recognized the 

unique aspects of rural Alaska’s diesel 

distribution system and diesel engine 

use and has allowed Alaska some 

flexibility (e.g., under the CI NSPS). The 

commenters requested that EPA assess 

and consider rural Alaska’s situation 

and allow for flexibility to address the 

challenges associated with the proposed 

rule. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters that stationary CI area 

source engines located in remote areas 

of Alaska have special challenges that 

should be taken into consideration. As 

the commenters noted, over 180 rural 

communities in Alaska that are not 

accessible by the Federal Aid Highway 

System rely on stationary diesel engines 

and fuel for electricity. They are 

scattered over long distances in remote 

areas and are not connected to 

population centers by road or power 

grid. They are located in the most severe 

arctic environments in the United 

States. Transportation of diesel fuel to 

these areas is dependent on weather and 

communities typically pay some of the 

highest prices for fuel in the United 

States. Stationary engines located in 

rural areas of Alaska have different fuel 

storage and use logistics and higher 

operating and compliance costs. Many 

of these communities are accessible 

only by plane. In light of the comments, 

we believe it is appropriate to treat 

engines located at area sources in areas 

of Alaska that are not accessible by the 

Federal Aid Highway System as a 

separate subcategory. We re-evaluated 

GACT for the subcategory of stationary 

engines located at area sources of HAP 

that are in an area of Alaska that is not 

accessible by the Federal Aid Highway 

System. For these engines, we 

determined that GACT is the same 

management practices as those required 

for non-emergency CI RICE less than or 

equal to 300 HP located at area sources. 

For more discussion of this issue, refer 

to the memo entitled ‘‘MACT Floor 

Determination for Existing Stationary 

Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 

HP and Existing Stationary Emergency 

CI RICE Located at Major Sources and 

GACT for Existing Stationary CI RICE 

Located at Area Sources.’’ 

B. Final Emission Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed opposition to EPA’s proposal 

to have emission standards apply to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9659 

small engines at major sources. Three 

commenters said that EPA should not 

finalize emission limits for engines less 

than 100 HP. One commenter argued 

that stationary engines that are less than 

100 HP should be exempted from 

numerical HAP emission standards. In 

the commenter’s opinion, it is not cost 

effective to install add-on controls on 

small engines or to purchase a new 

engine. According to the commenter, 

the majority of engines in this size range 

are operated for intermittent household 

or other infrequent use and emissions 

are naturally limited, the commenter 

said, and low emissions do not justify 

the costs associated with requiring a 

numerical HAP limit. One commenter 

does not believe that measurement is 

economically practicable for a small 

unit as the cost of testing will likely 

exceed the value of the engine itself. 

The commenter urged EPA to exclude 

small sources from the category. 

Response: EPA has reanalyzed its 

proposed standards based on the 

information and data presented and 

EPA concludes that it is not feasible 

within the context of this rulemaking to 

prescribe emission limitations for 

existing stationary CI engines smaller 

than 100 HP located at major sources, 

because the measurement of emissions 

from these engines is not practicable 

due to technological and economic 

limitations. In order to measure the 

emissions from these engines on a 

ppmvd at 15 percent O2 basis, the 

following test methods are required: 

EPA Method 1 or 1A for selection of 

sampling ports; EPA Method 3, 3A, or 

3B for determining the O2

concentration; EPA Method 4 for 

measuring the moisture content, and 

EPA Method 10 or ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) for measuring the CO 

concentration. These test methods 

require the sample point to be a certain 

distance between the engine and the 

exhaust. Because engines below 100 HP 

often have exhaust pipes with very 

small diameters and lengths, stack 

testing using these methods could 

require a modification or extension of 

the exhaust pipe to accomplish the test. 

The cost to do the testing ranges from 

approximately $1,000–$5,000 

depending on the method used. 

Generally, 100 HP engines cost around 

$5,000–$7,000 dollars and 50 HP 

engines cost approximately $4,000– 

$5,000, so the cost of performance 

testing could approach the cost of the 

engine itself. Given the cost of the 

testing itself, the physical adjustments 

necessary to accomplish the test, and 

the particular circumstances pertaining 

to stationary engines below 100 HP, we 

believe that the application of 

measurement methodology to this class 

of engines is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Therefore, EPA is promulgating work 

practice standards for these engines. 

Additional detail regarding this analysis 

can be found in the memorandum 

entitled ‘‘MACT Floor Determination for 

Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI 

RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing 

Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located 

at Major Sources and GACT for Existing 

Stationary CI RICE Located at Area 

Sources.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the use of CO as a surrogate for HAP 

emissions from stationary diesel engines 

is flawed and does not meet the DC 

Courts three part test for reasonableness. 

According to the commenter, the DC 

Court surrogate three part test requires 

EPA to demonstrate each of the 

following: (1) HAP from the source must 

be ‘‘invariantly present’’ in the surrogate; 

(2) control technology that reduces the 

surrogate must ‘‘indiscriminately 

capture’’ HAP from the source; and (3) 

control of the surrogate is the only 

means to control HAP from the source. 

The commenter pointed out that EPA 

admitted that CO may not be an 

adequate surrogate for metallic HAP 

emissions in the current proposal. The 

commenter argued that oxidation 

catalyst is only capable of 30 percent 

reduction of PM, thus allowing 70 

percent of the PM, including metallic 

and semi-volatile HAP to be emitted to 

the atmosphere. In addition, the 

commenter pointed out that 

technologies that control CO are not the 

only means by which a source can 

achieve reductions in HAP emitted from 

stationary diesel engines. The 

commenter believes that based on the 

DC Court’s three tests, final standards 

are not appropriate, and recommended 

that EPA adopt standards based on PM 

rather than CO reductions. 

Response: EPA believes that CO 

emissions are an appropriate surrogate 

for HAP emissions for stationary CI 

engines. EPA has demonstrated the 

relationship between CO emissions and 

HAP emissions in previous rulemakings 

for stationary engines. EPA does not 

have any data to support a relationship 

between PM emissions and HAP 

emissions for stationary CI engines, nor 

did the commenter provide any data to 

support such a relationship for this 

source category. It is clear that there are 

methods for reducing PM emissions, 

like reducing sulfur from fuel, that may 

not lead to a reduction in HAP. In 

addition, it is not clear that reductions 

in PM would reduce emissions of all 

HAP emitted from stationary engines, 

particularly emissions of formaldehyde, 

acetaldehyde, etc., that represent the 

vast majority of the HAP emissions from 

this source category. Therefore, for this 

particular source category, use of PM as 

a surrogate for HAP is not appropriate. 

The commenter also did not provide 

any data from testing of stationary CI 

engines to show that CO is not a good 

surrogate for metallic HAP. CO is also 

a better surrogate for HAP emitted from 

stationary CI engines than PM because 

PM is more difficult and expensive to 

measure than CO for this source 

category. For semi-volatile HAP, the 

testing conducted by EPA at Colorado 

State University showed that an 

oxidation catalyst reduced PAH 

emissions by greater than 90 percent for 

most of the PAH that were tested, and 

that CO level reductions correlated with 

level reductions in such HAP. 

In addition, as discussed above, EPA 

is taking an additional action pursuant 

to its authority under section 

112(d)(2)(B) and (C) for further control 

of metallic HAP. EPA determined that 

the most effective and achievable 

method for of controlling metallic HAP 

emissions from existing stationary CI 

engines is through the use of crankcase 

emission control systems. Combustion 

gases and oil mist that are vented from 

the engine crankcase are a substantial 

source of any metallic HAP emissions 

from stationary CI engines. EPA is 

promulgating a further standard under 

section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) that 

requires stationary non-emergency 

diesel engines greater than 300 HP to 

install either an open or closed 

crankcase filtration emission control 

system if the engine is not already 

equipped with one. The open crankcase 

filtration emission control system 

reduces emissions from the crankcase 

by filtering the exhaust stream to 

remove oil mist, particulates, and 

metals. In the case of the closed system, 

crankcase emissions are collected and 

filtered and those that remain in a 

gaseous state are routed to the intake 

manifold for burning. We believe this 

requirement will reduce metallic HAP 

from the stationary engine emissions. 

Comment: Multiple commenters were 

concerned with how EPA set the MACT 

floor for the proposed rule. Several 

commenters said that EPA has not 

considered variability in setting the 

MACT floor for the proposed rule. A 

commenter cited the recent Brick MACT 

ruling which indicated that ‘‘floors may 

legitimately account for variability [in 

the best performing sources that are the 

MACT floor basis] because ‘‘each 

[source] must meet the [specified] 

standard every day and under all 

operating conditions.’’ The commenters 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

stated EPA’s data set is not sufficient in 

covering variability. One commenter 

noted that the Courts have been critical 

of EPA’s process for setting minimum 

allowable emission limits. The 

commenter stated that EPA set the 

emission limits by averaging the best 12 

percent of all performance tests for each 

subcategory, but did not consider 

operational variations of the units. The 

commenter recommended that EPA set 

emission limits at the emissions level 

that is actually achieved under the 

worst reasonably foreseeable 

circumstances for the best performing 

12 percent as allowed by the Courts in 

the Cement Kiln MACT and Brick Kiln 

MACT decisions. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

EPA should consider a scenario under 

which lower temperatures and reduced 

catalyst efficiencies may occur due to 

reduced engine speed or load, resulting 

in lower temperatures and consider an 

alternative work practice under section 

112(h) of the CAA for the situation. Two 

commenters noted that the emission 

standards in the proposed rule apply at 

all times, but that there is no data or 

information in the rulemaking docket 

that supports the proposed limits at low 

loads or at operating conditions other 

than high load. The commenters 

expressed that EPA should provide data 

and analysis that supports requiring 

emission limits to be met at all times. 

Also, for compliance at all times, the 

commenter asked what averaging times 

apply. 

Response: EPA agrees that emissions 

variability should be better analyzed 

and has included a revised approach to 

variability in the MACT floor analysis. 

The final emission standards are based 

on test data collected from stationary 

engines produced by different engine 

manufacturers, operating at various 

loads and other conditions, and located 

in various types of service and 

locations. The engines range in size 

from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The data 

includes engines operating at loads from 

25–100 percent. To the extent 

commenters believed further data would 

have beneficial to EPA, EPA must make 

its determinations based on the 

information available to it. EPA asked 

for further data, and EPA did receive 

further data following the proposal, 

which led to changes in the final 

regulations. For engines operating at 

reduced speed or loads resulting in a 

reduced exhaust temperature, EPA 

believes that numerical emission 

requirements are still appropriate and 

there is no justification to only require 

work practice standards during these 

situations. We do not believe that the 

provisions of section 112(h) of the CAA 

are met (except as discussed elsewhere 

with regard to periods of start-up, 

emergency engines, and engines below 

100 HP) because testing is not 

economically and technologically 

impractical and the emissions can be 

readily routed through a conveyance for 

purposes of emission testing. EPA 

believes that the final emission 

standards will be achievable at all times 

covered by the standards and will 

reflect the numerous engine models and 

operating scenarios that can be expected 

from stationary engines. 

Regarding the comment asking about 

the averaging times that apply, EPA has 

clarified in the final rule that the 

emission standards are based on the 

average of three one-hour runs. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern with the proposed 

limits for emergency engines at both 

area and major sources. Numerous 

commenters stated that EPA should 

adopt management practices for 

emergency engines at area sources and 

not require emission limits from these 

engines. Commenters stated that 

emergency engines need special 

consideration, due to minimal 

operation, and the commenters said that 

EPA should apply section 112(h) of the 

CAA for emergency engines at major 

sources because of this limited 

operation. Several commenters 

recommended that emergency engines 

be subject to only work practice 

standards that limit the number of hours 

allowed for operation during nonemergency events. 

Several commenters recommended 

that EPA require management practices 

rather than a numerical emission limit 

for emergency diesel generators greater 

than 500 HP at area sources. The 

commenters suggested that such 

management practices could replace the 

existing proposed emission standard 

requirements for emergency CI engines 

greater than 500 HP. The commenters 

stated that the proposed rule and related 

docket indicates that CI emergency 

diesel engines can achieve a 40 ppmvd 

CO emission standard for both normal 

operations and startup or malfunction 

periods without add-on technology, 

which the commenters did not believe 

was correct. The commenters said the 

proposed rulemaking does not provide 

any basis for the proposed standards for 

emergency engines of this size range, 

and the GACT determination has not 

been properly established for these 

engines. In particular, according to the 

commenters, subsection 1 of section 

IV.B. of the proposed rule, which is 

cited in subsection 2 as the basis for the 

area source standards for large CI 

engines, does not appear to include any 

discussion of emission controls for 

emergency CI engines greater than 500 

HP. In the absence of such justification, 

the commenters state that the MACT 

floor for these large engines is no 

controls. The commenter acknowledged 

that such a no control argument may not 

be acceptable under the MACT because 

of the Brick MACT court case, but the 

commenters stated that there is no such 

limitation in making GACT 

determinations. The commenter was 

concerned that establishing an emission 

standard for large emergency CI engines 

would establish requirements for the 

installation of add-on controls for some, 

if not most of the sources in that 

category. EPA needs to conduct a 

regulatory analysis and assessment of 

the costs of these controls. The 

commenter gave an example of the 

impact of an emission limit and the 

impact of installing controls on one of 

his units. The commenter concluded 

that because of the unit’s limited 

operation, an oxidation catalyst control 

will have limited, if any, control 

effectiveness in actual use. 

The commenters said that despite 

EPA’s claims that the agency is not 

requiring performance tests of 

emergency engines, major sources with 

existing emergency engines appear to 

have an implicit testing requirement to 

demonstrate that they comply with 

concentration limits. Such testing could 

significantly increase the time the 

typical emergency engine would be 

used in year and impose additional 

environmental impact and costs. The 

commenters said EPA needs to resolve 

the conflict between the preamble and 

the regulatory language and replace the 

emission limits for emergency engines 

with work practices. The commenters 

raised similar concerns about the 

apparent requirement for performance 

testing of emergency RICE due to 

ambiguous rule language and said it 

should be clarified to explicitly state 

that such testing is not required. The 

commenter said the rule would require 

not only initial performance testing, but 

testing every 3 years. Because engine 

operation for performance testing would 

likely exceed typical operation for 

operational testing and maintenance, 

these testing requirements would result 

in increased operation of the engine 

with a corresponding significant 

increase in operating costs and 

emissions of other pollutants such as 

NOX. The commenters said emergency 

engines are used only during 

emergencies, other than short (less than 

one-half hour) weekly tests to assure the 

engines will perform. According to the 

commenter, performance tests (initial or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9661 

2California Air Resources Board Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

Stationary Source Division, Emissions Assessment 

Branch. September 2003. 

3California Air Resources Board Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

Stationary Source Division, Emissions Assessment 

Branch. September 2003. 

every 3 years) consisting of three 1-hour 

runs typically cost about $10,000 each 

and are not justified for limited use 

engines, the tests alone would add 

substantially to the fuel use of these 

engines are result in additional and 

unnecessary emissions and work 

practice standards under section 112(h) 

are more appropriate due to 

‘‘technological and economic 

limitations.’’ 

Response: EPA reviewed the 

information submitted by the 

commenters and determined that it 

would be appropriate to require 

management practices for all emergency 

stationary CI engines at area sources. 

Because these engines are typically used 

only a few number of hours per year, the 

costs of emission control and the costs 

of emission testing are not warranted 

when compared to the emission 

reductions that would be achieved. The 

proposed numeric emission levels are 

not GACT for emergency engines at area 

sources. Such engines rarely if ever use 

the type of emission controls that might 

have been necessary for many engines to 

meet the numeric standard, and such 

engines are rarely if ever subjected to 

emissions testing. Therefore, EPA 

determined that GACT for all stationary 

emergency engines at area sources is the 

use of management practices. 

EPA also analyzed the types of 

engines that were included in the area 

source category listing for stationary 

RICE. As a result of this analysis, EPA 

determined that emissions from existing 

stationary emergency engines located at 

residential, commercial, and 

institutional facilities that are area 

sources of HAP were not included in the 

1990 baseline emissions inventory that 

was used as the basis for the listing of 

source categories needed to ensure that 

90 percent of area source emissions are 

regulated. Existing stationary emergency 

engines located at residential, 

commercial, and institutional facilities 

that are area sources are therefore not 

subject to this regulation. 

For stationary emergency engines at 

major sources, EPA determined that it is 

not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard because the 

application of measurement 

methodology to this class of engines is 

impracticable due to technological and 

economic limitations. A more detailed 

discussion of this determination can be 

found in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘MACT Floor Determination for Existing 

Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less 

Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary 

Emergency CI RICE Located at Major 

Sources and GACT for Existing 

Stationary CI RICE Located at Area 

Sources.’’ EPA determined that it is 

impracticable to test stationary CI 

emergency engines using the test 

procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ 

because using these procedures would 

increase the required number of hours 

of operation of the engine beyond the 

routinely scheduled reliability testing 

and maintenance operation, thereby 

increasing emissions. While emergency 

engines have periods of operation for 

scheduled maintenance and reliability 

testing, those periods are usually several 

hours shorter than the number of hours 

that would be required to run the 

necessary emissions tests under subpart 

ZZZZ. CARB conducted a survey of 

stationary emergency diesel engines in 

2002 2 to determine the average number 

of hours that stationary emergency 

diesel engines operate. The average 

hours of operation for maintenance and 

testing were 22 hours per year, which is 

less than two hours per month. For the 

engines that CARB surveyed, 86 percent 

operated less than 30 hours/year for 

testing and maintenance. Thirty percent 

operated less than 10 hours/year. 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) codes require that stationary 

diesel engines that are used for 

emergency purposes are run 30 minutes 

per week (27 hours per year) for 

maintenance and testing purposes. It is 

impracticable to test emergency 

stationary engines as a result of 

emergency operation because 

emergencies are unplanned events and 

implementation of the test procedures 

specified in subpart ZZZZ require 

advance planning before tests are 

conducted. In an emergency, the owner/ 

operator does not have the advance 

planning time necessary to implement 

subpart ZZZZ. It is also impracticable to 

test stationary CI emergency engines at 

major sources because of the large 

population of these engines. EPA 

estimates that there are over 200,000 

existing stationary CI engines from 100– 

500 HP at major sources that are subject 

to this rulemaking. There are only 

approximately 300–400 testing firms 

and these stationary engines are not the 

only sources that are required to be 

tested, so if testing were required for 

these engines, it would take many years 

to test all of these engines. The cost for 

testing all of these engines would also 

be approximately $200 million, which 

would be unreasonable. 

EPA expects that these changes from 

the proposed rule address the concerns 

expressed by the commenters about the 

requirements for stationary emergency 

CI engines. Regarding the comments 

pertaining to performance testing for 

emergency engines, EPA did not intend 

for the rule to require performance 

testing for emergency engines. The final 

rule does not contain any performance 

testing requirements for emergency 

engines. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the standard require 

CDPF or a combination of oxidation 

catalysts and CDPF for new or existing 

non-emergency diesel RICE. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s proposal 

calls for oxidation catalysts on nonemergency CI engines, which EPA 

reports will result in a 90 percent 

reduction in CO and 30 percent 

reduction in PM, whereas CDPF would 

result in greater reductions in PM (90 

percent reductions or greater). 

Another commenter reported that it 

had conducted risk assessment 

evaluations for diesel particulate 

emissions from non-emergency diesel 

engines and found that the diesel 

particulate emissions from nonemergency diesel engines and found 

that the diesel particulate emissions 

often create a significant cancer risk 

even when there is a 30 percent PM 

reduction. The commenter 

recommended that EPA base standards 

on CDPF or a combination of oxidation 

catalyst and CDPF, for existing and new 

non-emergency diesel engines. 

Response: The standards that EPA 

proposed and that EPA is finalizing do 

not require a particular control 

technology. For the proposed rule, 

EPA’s beyond-the-floor analysis resulted 

in standards that were based on the use 

of oxidation catalyst control for 

stationary non-emergency diesel engines 

above 300 HP; EPA has made the same 

determination for the beyond-the-floor 

standards in the final rule. EPA 

determined that the MACT standards 

should be based on oxidation catalyst 

rather than CDPF because we do not 

have any data that shows that CDPFs get 

greater reductions of HAP than 

oxidation catalysts on stationary 

engines, and CDPFs are approximately 

four times as costly as oxidation 

catalysts.3 EPA also has concerns 

regarding the technical feasibility of 

CDPFs for existing stationary diesel 

engines. Many existing diesel engines 

are not electronically controlled, and 

PM emissions from older engines are 

often too high for efficient operation of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a CDPF. Further, engine exhaust 

temperatures are often not high enough 

for regeneration of the CDPF filter 

substrate. EPA notes that owners and 

operators are free to choose whichever 

control technology, which could be 

oxidation catalyst or CDPF, as long as 

they meet the final standards. EPA is 

not addressing new diesel engines in 

this rulemaking. 

Comment: A few commenters were 

concerned about requirements that 

might apply to engines that startup 

turbines. Four commenters suggested 

that RICE used to startup combustion 

turbines be exempt from the proposed 

rule, or deemed to fall under the 

‘‘emergency’’ definition in 40 CFR 

§ 63.6675. One commenter explained 

that turbine RICE only run for a few 

minutes to get the unit started and the 

total fuel consumption is not significant. 

One commenter was concerned that the 

short run-time during each operation 

may not be long enough to get the filter 

up to its design temperature for 

achievement of its removal efficiency 

(and note that EPA discusses it in the 

preamble) or that a filter may require 

additional run time for regeneration. 

The commenter further noted that the 

additional run-time required by the 3 

year testing requirement could outstrip 

the run-time needed to support these 

combustion turbine peaking unit 

starting devices just for compliance with 

the RICE rule. The commenter noted 

that increased consumption of fuel for 

rule compliance would be wasting the 

natural resource and adding emissions 

for no measurable reduction being 

gained by the rule. Two commenters 

noted that every major power plant in 

the United States is required to have 

black start capability, which typically 

involves a small combustion turbine 

equipped with a diesel engine used for 

startup of the turbine. According to the 

commenter, the diesel starting engine, 

rated less than 500 HP, generally 

operates less than 10 minutes per 

combustion turbine start. The 

commenter indicated that the majority 

of black start units only operate during 

emergencies or unusually high demand 

days, and that a review of the 

commenter’s company’s operating data 

determined that seven black start units 

in the system averaged 32 starts per year 

(which equates to less than 6 hours of 

operation per year, although some 

limited additional operation may occur 

as a result of routine maintenance and 

readiness testing). 

Response: In the final rule EPA has 

required that stationary engines used to 

startup combustion turbines meet work 

practice standards. EPA finds that the 

short time of operation for these engines 

(10–15 minutes per start) makes 

application of measurement 

methodology for these engines using the 

required procedures, which require 

continuous hours of operation, 

impracticable. Requiring numerical 

emission standards for these engines 

would actually require substantially 

longer operation than would occur 

normally in use, leading to greater 

emissions and greater costs. EPA also 

agrees with the commenters that it 

would not be appropriate to set 

emission limits that are based on the use 

of aftertreatment control for the 

subcategory of stationary CI engines that 

are used to startup combustion turbines. 

Oxidation catalyst control would not be 

effective for these engines due to their 

short time of operation (10–15 minutes 

per start). 

C. Management Practices 

Comment: Several commenters did 

not agree with the specific management 

practices that EPA has proposed in the 

rule for area sources or recommended 

different maintenance practices. 

According to the commenters, the 

maintenance frequency in the proposed 

rule exceeds current practices or is not 

supported in the proposed rule. Several 

commenters agreed that management 

practices are appropriate for the proper 

operation of the engines and is a 

reasonable means to reduce HAP 

emissions, however, did not agree with 

the specific maintenance practices 

proposed by EPA. Numerous 

commenters recommended that EPA 

allow owners/operators to follow engine 

manufacturers’ recommended practices 

or the owners/operators own sitespecific maintenance plan. 

One commenter pointed out that 

operators have a direct interest in 

maintaining engine oil, hoses, and belts, 

so the engine runs reliably, but the 

appropriate frequency for these 

maintenance practices are specific to 

engine design and are not ‘‘one size fits 

all.’’ Ten commenters recommended that 

EPA revise fixed maintenance (one-sizefits-all) requirements to maintenance 

plans. The commenters stated that, 

while fixed maintenance intervals work 

well for new mass produced engines 

similar to those in automobiles, they are 

inappropriate for the wide variety of 

existing engines used in the oil and gas, 

agriculture, and power generation 

industries across the nation. The 

commenters pointed out that EPA 

allows the use of operator-defined 

maintenance plans that are ‘‘consistent 

with good air pollution control practice 

for minimizing emissions’’ to be used in 

other portions of this same rule, and 

asserted that EPA should allow the use 

of operator-defined maintenance plans 

to greatly reduce cost and allow 

operators to optimize maintenance for 

each type of engine. 

One of these commenters added that 

current industry engine maintenance 

programs are driven by tried-and-true 

practices and since these practices 

effectively keep the engines running, 

they allow the products of the members 

of the commenter’s organization to go to 

market. The commenter stated that 

additional, burdensome, frequent, and 

time-consuming maintenance 

requirements will cause the members of 

the commenter’s organization to morefrequently shut down engines and thus 

shut down production. 

Two commenters said that if EPA 

keeps the management practices as 

proposed, the frequencies associated 

with conducting engine maintenance 

should be revised to be commensurate 

with today’s practices. The commenter 

believes the maintenance practices, as 

proposed, are significantly burdensome 

and lack basis. According to the 

commenters, EPA should replace the 

maintenance hour intervals with 

company recommended performancebased maintenance practices to be 

documented in an operator-defined 

maintenance plan consistent with 

requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

JJJJ. 

One commenter stated that most of 

the engine manufacturers for the 

engines in the oil and gas industry 

recommend oil changes on a monthly 

schedule. The commenter also indicated 

that it is common practice to 

periodically sample and test the engine 

oil to see if the oil properties are 

sufficient to extend this time period 

between oil changes. According to the 

commenter, this testing has shown in 

many cases that the oil change interval 

can be extended without any 

detrimental effects on the engine, which 

allows industry to maximize 

efficiencies, minimize oil usage, reduce 

waste, and streamline operations with 

no negative impacts to the engine or 

emissions. 

One commenter expressed that 

inspection of hoses and belts has no 

impact on HAP emissions. The 

commenter expressed that, generally, it 

agreed that performing maintenance on 

engines will help to reduce HAP 

emissions, but that while inspecting 

belts and hoses is an important part of 

general engine maintenance (and most 

sources likely conduct regular 

inspections of their engines), such 

inspections have no effect on emissions 

and should be removed from the 

proposed rule. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9663 

Response: EPA proposed to require 

specific management practices for 

certain engines, primarily for smaller 

existing stationary engines at area 

sources where EPA thought that add-on 

controls were not GACT. EPA indicated 

at proposal that the management 

practices specified in the proposal 

reflected GACT and that such practices 

would provide a reasonable level of 

control, while at the same time ensuring 

that the burden on particularly small 

businesses and individual owners and 

operators would be minimized. EPA 

asked for comment on the proposed 

management practices and received 

comments on the proposal from 

industry. 

EPA agrees with the commenters that 

it is difficult to adopt a set of 

management practices that are 

appropriate for all types of stationary 

engines. Regardless, EPA must 

promulgate emission standards 

pursuant to section 112(d)(5) for all 

engines at area sources covered by the 

final rule. EPA still believes that a 

management practice approach reflects 

GACT for emergency engines and 

smaller engines at area sources. These 

management practices represent what is 

generally available among such engines 

to reduce HAP, and the practices will 

ensure that emissions are minimized 

and engines are properly operated. EPA 

does not agree with the commenters that 

it would be appropriate to simply 

specify that owners and operators 

follow the manufacturer’s recommended 

maintenance practices for the engine. 

EPA cannot delegate to manufacturers 

the final decision regarding the proper 

management practices required by 

section 112(d). To address the 

comments that there may be special and 

unique operating situations where the 

management practices in the rule may 

not be appropriate, for example engines 

using a synthetic lubricant, EPA notes 

that owners/operators may work with 

State permitting authorities pursuant to 

40 CFR subpart E (‘‘Approval of State 

Programs and Delegation of Federal 

Authorities’’) for approval of alternative 

management practices for their engines. 

Subpart E implements section 112(l) of 

the CAA, which authorizes EPA to 

approve alternative State/local/Tribal 

HAP standards or programs when such 

requirements are demonstrated to be no 

less stringent than EPA promulgated 

standards. 

The management practices EPA 

proposed for stationary engines greater 

than 50 HP included changing the oil 

and filter every 500 hours, replacing the 

spark plugs every 1,000 hours, and 

inspecting all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replacing as necessary. For 

engines less than 50 HP, EPA proposed 

to require that these engines change the 

oil and filter every 200 hours, replace 

spark plugs every 500 hours, and 

inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

EPA agrees that there is a wide range 

of recommended maintenance 

procedures, but EPA must promulgate 

specific requirements pursuant to 

section 112(d) for this source category. 

Based on the different suggested 

maintenance recommendations EPA has 

reviewed, maintenance requirements 

appear to vary depending on whether 

the engine is used for standby, 

intermittent, or continuous operation. 

Maintenance is also dependent on the 

engine application, design, and model. 

Taking into consideration the 

information received from commenters 

on the proposed maintenance practices 

for oil and filter changes and carefully 

reviewing engine manufacturer 

recommended maintenance procedures, 

EPA has determined that for stationary 

non-emergency engines below 300 HP, 

GACT will require the oil and filter to 

be changed every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, which reflects the management 

practices that are generally available. 

For stationary emergency engines, the 

final rule requires the oil and filter to be 

changed every 500 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first. EPA 

notes that in the final rule it has 

clarified that spark plug changes are not 

required for stationary diesel engines 

since diesel engines do not use spark 

plugs. EPA also determined that it 

would be appropriate to include the 

option to use an oil analysis program in 

the final rule. 

EPA does not agree with the 

comments that inspecting belts and 

hoses has no impact on emissions. 

Ensuring that the engine is properly 

operated and maintained will help 

minimize the HAP emissions from the 

engine. Properly maintained belts and 

hoses allow the engine to operate at 

maximum efficiency. Hoses are 

generally used to move coolant through 

the engine to prevent the engine from 

overheating. Overheating of the engine 

can cause a malfunction in the 

combustion process, and may also burn 

the engine oil in the combustion 

chamber. Both of these conditions may 

increase pollutant emissions from the 

engine. Belts are commonly used for 

electrical generation and engine timing, 

and if worn or broken can cause damage 

to the engine and increase emissions. 

Therefore, EPA has required 

management practices that reflect GACT 

and that, in EPA’s view, will ensure the 

proper operation and maintenance of 

the engine. 

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed serious concern over the 

proposed emission standards for periods 

of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM). The commenters state that the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

Columbia Circuit vacated the SSM 

exemption in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A 

on December 19, 2008, and the decision 

requires the Agency to implement 

standards that apply at all times, 

including during SSM periods. 

Numerous commenters thought the 

quick response to the December 2008 

Court decision on the SSM issue is 

premature and recommended that EPA 

wait for a final decision before 

incorporate elements from this case. 

Numerous commenters are of the 

opinion that EPA has not provided a 

technical basis for its establishment of 

SSM limits and that any SSM limits 

should be replaced with work practice 

standards and disagreed with the 

decision to include limits for SSM 

periods. In addition, several 

commenters said that emissions during 

SSM events cannot be measured and 

therefore cannot be confirmed and 

limits are not enforceable. One 

commenter recommended that EPA 

require a SSM plan similar to the SSM 

plan currently required under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The commenter 

also pointed out that 40 CFR 63.6650(b) 

in the existing rule requires operators to 

operate and maintain their equipment in 

a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices at all times, 

including periods of SSM. The 

commenter believed that this 

requirement in conjunction with a SSM 

plan will achieve the same goals as the 

proposed rules in a much more cost 

effective and logical manner. 

Many commenters recommended that 

EPA consider other alternatives to 

implement during SSM periods, such as 

possibly requiring work practice 

standards, which the commenters 

believe is the most reasonable approach 

and is justified under the CAA. 

Commenters believed that work practice 

standards that minimize the emissions 

during SSM periods is the most 

practical method of keeping HAP 

emissions from engines as low as 

possible. 

Several commenters said that there is 

no method to determine compliance 

during SSM periods. The commenters 

said that it will be difficult or 

impossible to design a test program to 

describe emissions during SSM events, 

e.g., the commenter is not sure how a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

malfunction would be defined 

considering the unexpected and 

anomalous nature of the event. 

Therefore, emissions during these 

periods cannot be confirmed, the 

commenters said. Similarly, 

commenters believed that it is not 

reasonable to set numerical limits 

during startup because there are no 

available or repeatable test methods or 

procedures for measuring emissions 

during startup or malfunction, plus 

there is no prescribed definition of what 

constitutes startup of an engine, which 

can vary significantly for a number of 

reasons such as engine and catalyst 

type, fuel, climatic conditions, 

application and load. 

One commenter said that there are no 

viable measurement methods available 

to measure CO, formaldehyde or VOC 

during transient operation and a review 

conducted by the commenter of Table 4 

in the proposed rule shows the 

inconsistencies related to transient 

measurement acceptability with respect 

to stack gas moisture and flow rate, 

delays in the actual response of 

analyzers, issues in obtaining an 

accurate measurement during a 

transient test due to an axial diffusion 

function in long gaseous emissions 

sample lines, and field gaseous emission 

measurements require stack traverse as 

well for the emissions under 

measurement, per EPA Methods 7, 10, 

25, etc., which eliminates the possibility 

of getting an accurate measurement 

during transient events such as a 

startup. 

One commenter claimed that issuance 

of numerical limits for SSM based on 

the emissions of the ‘‘best controlled 

sources prior to full warm up of the 

catalytic control’’ fails to consider 

emissions during malfunction of the 

engines themselves. The commenter 

asserts that while EPA appropriately 

determined that during a control device 

malfunction, the floor and standard 

cannot be set assuming operation of the 

control device, EPA errs in limiting its 

analysis solely to operation of the 

controls since emissions can increase as 

a result of engine malfunctions as well. 

The commenter noted that its 

experience is consistent with EPA’s 

statements that emissions during an 

engine malfunction may increase due to 

the effects on exhaust temperatures and 

composition. The commenter concluded 

that emission limits would need to be 

based on the emissions level from the 

best performing sources without control 

while the engine is malfunctioning. One 

commenter added that it does not make 

sense to set any numerical standards 

during a malfunction of an engine 

because inherent in the concept of a 

malfunction is that emissions will be 

malfunctioning as well. It is also not 

logical to apply the concept of ‘‘best 

performing’’ malfunctioning engine, the 

commenter said. For these reasons, it is 

unreasonable for EPA to promulgate 

numerical emission limits for periods of 

malfunction, in the commenter’s 

opinion. Emission testing for 

malfunctions would be near impossible 

to conduct given the sporadic and 

unpredictable nature of the events, the 

commenter said. The commenter said 

that the nature of malfunctions means it 

is not feasible to predict or simulate 

emissions that occur during periods of 

malfunctions. The commenter asserted 

that with respect to engines, it is not 

technologically or economically feasible 

to apply measurement methodology for 

the emissions during SSM periods and 

further, that it is unreasonable for the 

Agency in the face of the lack of 

accurate emission measurements to 

simply set the standard at the level for 

normal operations (e.g., for sources not 

using a control device). The commenter 

stated that this situation is precisely the 

circumstance in which Congress 

envisioned that a work practice 

standard would be established, and 

urged EPA to adopt a work practice 

standard applicable to malfunction and 

startup periods for engines consistent 

with section 112(h) of the CAA and not 

to apply the numerical limits for normal 

operations. 

One commenter stated that EPA 

solicited comment on the level of 

specificity needed to define the periods 

of startup and malfunction. The 

commenter believes the responses differ 

based on whether the event is a startup 

or malfunction. The commenter noted 

that startup of an engine begins with the 

start of fuel flow to the engine and ends 

when the engine has achieved normal 

operating temperature and air to fuel 

flows as indicated by the manufacturers’ 

specifications, and while the initiation 

of a startup is predictable, its conclusion 

is not time-determined, but 

operationally-determined. The 

commenter noted where a catalyst is 

used to control emissions; startup does 

not end until the required catalyst bed 

temperature has been achieved, 

however, this may happen before the 

engine air and fuel flows are normal and 

thus catalyst bed temperature is not the 

exclusive criterion that defines the end 

of the startup period. The commenter 

noted that the start of the malfunction 

should be defined as when the normal 

operation emission limit is exceeded 

and the end of the malfunction should 

be set as when the normal operation 

emission limit is restored or the engine 

is shutdown. The commenter noted that 

malfunctions often require shutdown to 

address, but such shutdowns can be 

delayed because immediate engine 

shutdown would cause other upsets. 

Therefore, the commenter believes it 

would not be reasonable to set any 

specific time limits on either startup or 

malfunction periods, because their 

duration can be a function of 

operational need. Similarly, one 

commenter disagreed that it would be 

appropriate to set a specific limit on the 

time allowed for startup because not all 

engines experience the same type of 

startup and malfunction. The length of 

startup will depend on many factors 

including engine type, size, fuel type 

and duty cycle, plus the frequency of 

required startups will also vary greatly 

among engines because some engines 

are only used for intermittent operation. 

Some commenters thought that 

limiting the engine startup time is a 

reasonable method to limit emissions. 

The commenter added that the most 

effective way to control emissions 

during startup for engines with catalysts 

is to limit the amount of time it takes 

to warm up the exhaust to initialize the 

catalyzation process and startup time 

can be easily monitored. The 

commenter added that the time to be 

monitored at startup be defined as from 

the initial engine in-cylinder 

combustion, corresponding with 

continuous operation, up to the point 

that a defined catalyst inlet temperature 

is reached. The commenter also 

recommended that owners/operators be 

able to request additional startup time if 

necessary in special circumstances, e.g., 

in extremely cold climates or where 

sufficient load cannot be reached within 

30 minutes. The commenters 

recommended a limit of one hour for 

startup and 30 minutes for shutdown. 

The rule should not include a time limit 

for malfunctions, as the length of time 

during which an engine will be out of 

compliance would depend on the type 

of malfunction, the commenters said. 

The commenters suggested that each 

affected source would be required to 

prepare a SSM plan, which would have 

to address appropriate actions and time 

limits for malfunctions. The commenter 

suggested that for engine startups, the 

work practice should require loading 

the engine to normal operating load as 

soon as practicable so that the catalytic 

controls are within operating range as 

soon as practicable 

The commenters also objected to 

EPA’s proposed second option. The 

commenter said the data are apparently 

derived from the best controlled engines 

not using catalytic controls. The 

commenter said that emissions data 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9665 

from steady-state operation of 

uncontrolled engines does not account 

for the cooler engine and fuel 

temperature conditions during startup. 

Nor does the second option properly 

account for malfunctions. 

One commenter proposed that EPA 

treat SSM emissions as de minimis, 

using the DC Circuit rationale in 

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. The 

commenter noted that catalyst systems 

do not perform at low temperatures, and 

the SSM periods vary in duration and 

intensity, which can significantly 

impact actual emissions profiles. The 

commenter provided examples of why 

an assumption that SSM emissions are 

identical to normal stable operations 

emissions is erroneous and a gross oversimplification of unit operations. 

Response: EPA received extensive 

comments on the proposed 

requirements applicable to existing 

stationary engines during SSM. 

Consistent with the recent Court 

decision that vacated the exemption in 

40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM 

(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019), 

EPA has established standards in this 

rule that apply at all times. EPA 

disagrees with those comments 

suggesting that EPA was premature in 

proposing standards during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued its 

opinion vacating the SSM exemption in 

December 2008, and we appropriately 

accounted for that decision in proposing 

the rule in February 2009. EPA does not 

believe it is appropriate to promulgate 

final rules that are inconsistent with the 

decision of the DC Circuit. 

EPA has determined that the 

emissions from stationary CI engines 

during startup are significantly different 

than the emissions during normal 

operation. During startup, incomplete 

combustion of the diesel fuel causes 

variations in the pollutant 

concentrations and fluctuations in the 

flow rate of the exhaust gas. Incomplete 

combustion is due to cold areas of the 

cylinder walls that cause the 

temperature to be too low for efficient 

combustion. As the engine continues to 

operate, these cold regions begin to heat 

up and allow for more complete 

combustion of the diesel fuel and 

stabilization of the exhaust flow rate 

and pollutant concentrations. In 

addition, the engine experiences 

extreme transient conditions during 

startup, including variations in speed 

and load, poor atomization of the fuel 

injection, which leads to variable engine 

and engine exhaust temperatures, 

variable exhaust gas flow rates, and 

variable diluent pollutant concentration. 

Note for example the brief time spent at 

different load conditions as shown in 

Figure 1 of the attachment to EMA’s 

letter dated February 17, 2009 (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0019), which 

illustrates the transient nature of the 

engine startup phase. Other factors that 

cause emissions to be higher during 

startup, including for engines that are 

not equipped with oxidation catalyst, 

are a higher propensity for engine 

misfire and poorer atomization of the 

fuel spray during startup. Aftertreatment technologies like oxidation 

catalysts and CDPFs must also reach a 

threshold temperature in order to 

reduce emissions effectively. In the 

February 17, 2009, EMA letter, EMA 

provided various graphs illustrating 

sample engine startup profiles and 

graphs demonstrating the effect of 

engine exhaust temperature on catalyst 

efficiency. Figure 6 of the attachment to 

EMA’s letter (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708–0019.1) shows how the CO 

efficiency is a function of the catalyst 

inlet temperature. 

EPA has evaluated the criteria in 

section 112(h) and carefully considered 

and reviewed the comments on this 

issue. EPA has determined that it is not 

feasible to prescribe a numerical 

emission standard for stationary CI 

engines during periods of startup 

because the application of measurement 

methodology to these engines is not 

practicable due to the technological and 

economic limitations described below. 

EPA test methods (e.g., 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, Methods 2, 3A, 4, and 

10) do not respond adequately to the 

relatively short term and highly variable 

exhaust gas characteristics occurring 

during these periods. The innate and 

substantial changes in the engine 

operations during startup operations 

create rapid variations in exhaust gas 

flow rate as well as changes in both 

pollutant and diluent gas 

concentrations. Correlating the exhaust 

gas flow rates and the gas components 

concentration data for each fraction of 

time over the entire period of a startup 

operation is necessary to apportion the 

values appropriately and to determine 

representative average emissions 

concentrations or total mass emissions 

rate. 

Measuring flow and concentration 

data in the types of rapidly changing 

exhaust gas conditions characteristic of 

stationary CI engines is unachievable 

with current technologies applicable to 

stack emissions testing. For example, 

application of Method 2 to measure 

stack flow rate requires collecting data 

for velocity pressure and stack 

temperature at each of 12 traverse points 

and a corresponding stack moisture and 

oxygen concentration (for molecular 

weight determination). This traverse 

operation requires about 30 minutes to 

complete to produce a single value for 

the test period, which is approximately 

the same amount of time as the engine 

startup period. Clearly a single flow rate 

value would not sufficiently represent 

the variable flow conditions nor allow 

appropriate apportioning of the 

pollutant concentration measurements 

over that same period for calculating a 

representative average emissions value. 

Even if the start-up period is longer than 

30 minutes, the stack flow rate test 

period could not be short enough to 

represent the short term (e.g., minuteby-minute) result necessary for 

representative emissions calculations. 

These findings lead us to conclude that 

correlating the flow and concentration 

data as necessary to determine 

appropriate proportional contributions 

to the emissions rates or concentrations 

in calculating representative emissions 

over these short highly variable 

conditions with currently available field 

testing procedures is problematic for 

stationary CI engines. In addition, even 

were it technically feasible to measure 

emissions during startups for stationary 

CI engines, the cost of doing so for every 

startup at every covered engine would 

impose a substantial economic burden. 

There are approximately 936,000 

existing stationary CI engines that are 

subject to this rule; the cost for testing 

every one of these engines during 

engine startup could be more than $1 

billion. 

EPA is therefore finalizing an 

operational standard in lieu of a 

numerical emission limit during periods 

of startup in accordance with section 

112(h) of the CAA. EPA is limited to the 

information before it, which, of course, 

includes any information provided by 

the commenters. See 112(d)(3)(A). In 

this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of 

the information before it, including that 

provided by commenters, and 

determined that this standard complies 

with the requirements of sections 112(d) 

and 112(h). The final rule requires that 

owners and operators of stationary 

engines limit the startup time to 30 

minutes or less. Engine startup is 

defined as the time from initial start 

until applied load and engine and 

associated equipment reaches steady 

state or normal operation. For stationary 

engine with catalytic controls, engine 

startup means the time from initial start 

until applied load and engine and 

associated equipment reaches steady 

state or normal operation, including the 

catalyst. EPA is also including a 

requirement in the final rule to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

minimize the engine’s time spent at idle 

and minimize the engine’s startup time 

at startup to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe loading of the 

engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after 

which time the otherwise applicable 

emission standards apply. As with any 

work practice, CAA section 112(h)(3) 

and EPA’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR 63.6(g) provide that major 

sources can petition the Administrator 

for approval of an alternative work 

practice, which must be at least as 

stringent as what is required in the 

regulation. 

Regarding shutdown, EPA determined 

that it was not necessary to establish 

different standards that would be 

applicable during shutdown for 

stationary CI engines. The commenters 

did not provide any information that 

shows emissions would be higher 

during shutdown than during normal 

operation. In addition, commenters are 

incorrect that compliance with the 

standards must be instantaneous. 

Compliance with these emission 

standards has always been based on the 

results of testing that is conducted over 

a three-hour period; EPA has made this 

more explicit in this rule. Since the 

shutdown period for stationary CI 

engines is typically only a matter of 

minutes, it is believed that even if a 

shutdown occurred during the 

performance test, the engine would still 

be able to comply with the emission 

limitation. In a letter dated February 17, 

2009 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0019), 

EMA indicates that HAP emissions will 

be sufficiently controlled during periods 

of shutdown. EMA stated in its letter 

that according to manufacturers, 

emissions control equipment would 

most likely continue to reduce 

emissions as designed throughout the 

shutdown period. According to EMA, 

this is because engine emissions control 

systems and equipment are, during the 

start of an engine shutdown, at high 

enough temperatures to control HAP 

emissions and will continue to be 

sufficiently high until the engine shuts 

down. This trend is illustrated in the 

attachment to EMA’s February 17, 2009, 

letter to EPA, where EMA provided two 

graphs with sample engine shutdown 

profiles. Figure 2 of the attachment to 

EMA’s letter (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708–0019.1) shows catalyst 

temperatures versus minutes during 

engine shutdown and illustrates stable 

catalyst temperatures. 

In establishing the standards in this 

rule, EPA has taken into account startup 

periods and, for the reasons explained 

above, has established different 

standards for those periods. With 

respect to malfunctions, EPA proposed 

two options for subcategories where the 

proposed emission standard was based 

on the use of catalytic controls. The first 

proposed option was to have the same 

standards apply during normal 

operation and malfunctions. The second 

proposed option was that standards 

during malfunctions be based on 

emissions expected from the best 

controlled sources prior to the full 

warm-up of the catalytic control. For 

subcategories where the proposed 

emission standard was not based on the 

use of catalytic controls, we proposed 

the same emission limitations apply 

during malfunctions and periods of 

normal operations. EPA is finalizing the 

first option described above, which is 

that the same standards apply during 

normal operation and malfunctions. In 

the proposed rule, EPA expressed the 

view that there are different modes of 

operation for any stationary source, and 

that these modes generally include 

startup, normal operations, shutdown, 

and malfunctions. However, after 

considering the issue of malfunctions 

more carefully, EPA believes that 

malfunctions are distinguishable from 

startup, shutdown and normal 

operations. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should 

not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that 

occur at such times do not need to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112(d) standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times. For 

example, we note that Section 112 uses 

the concept of ‘‘best performing’’ sources 

in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards 

must meet. One commenter expressed 

the view that it is not logical to apply 

the concept of ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

source that is malfunctioning. Indeed, 

the goal of best performing sources is to 

operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. Similarly, 

although standards for area sources are 

not required to be set based on ‘‘best 

performers,’’ we believe that what is 

‘‘generally available’’ should not be 

based on periods in which there is a 

‘‘failure to operate.’’ 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in 

setting CAA section 112(d) standards for 

stationary CI engines. As noted above, 

by definition, malfunctions are sudden 

and unexpected events and it would be 

difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources. Moreover, malfunctions can 

vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

Finally, EPA believes that 

malfunctions will not cause stationary 

CI engines to violate the standard that 

applies during normal operations. 

Stationary CI engines would in most 

cases shut down immediately or with 

very little delay in the event of a 

malfunction. Because the standard is 

expressed as the average of three onehour runs, or a work or management 

practice, any emissions that occur prior 

to engine shutdown should not affect a 

source’s ability to comply with the 

standard. Commenters’ concerns 

regarding compliance certifications 

should not be a concern for this same 

reason. This approach will also 

encourage shutdowns as soon as 

practicable when a malfunction that 

affects emissions occurs. In the unlikely 

event that a source fails to comply with 

the applicable CAA section 112(d) 

standards as a result of a malfunction 

event, EPA would determine an 

appropriate response based on, among 

other things, the good faith efforts of the 

source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including 

preventative and corrective actions, as 

well as root cause analyses to ascertain 

and rectify excess emissions. EPA 

would also consider whether the 

source’s failure to comply with the CAA 

section 112(d) standard was, in fact, 

‘‘sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable’’ and was not instead 

‘‘caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 

(definition of malfunction). 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenter who said that EPA should 

treat SSM emissions as de minimis. It is 

doubtful whether a de minimis 

exemption is even possible under 

section 112(d) of the Act in these 

circumstances, see National Lime Ass’n 

v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 640 (DC Cir, 

2000), but in any case the commenter 

provides no specific information to 

justify EPA making such a de minimis 

finding in this instance. Given the very 

narrow and specific circumstances 

delineated by the court in Alabama 

Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir. 

1979) for making such a finding, and the 

lack of specific information from the 

commenter that these circumstances 

exist in this instance, we do not make 

a de minimis finding. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9667 

E. Emergency Engines 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that EPA’s proposed definition of 

emergency is not clear as to whether it 

includes emergency engines that operate 

in emergency demand response (DR) 

programs. The commenter believed that 

the record on 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

IIII, from which the proposed rule 

definition was drawn, clearly indicates 

that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII 

definition was meant to address peak 

shaving, not emergency engines 

participating in emergency DR 

programs. Several commenters 

requested that EPA modify the proposed 

definition of emergency engines to 

enable engines to maintain their status 

as emergency engines, even though the 

engines that are used in DR programs 

are part of a financial agreement and 

based on the current definition would 

not be considered emergency engines. 

Two commenters stated that emergency 

DR programs should not be confused 

with economic DR programs (e.g., peak 

shaving). Emergency DR programs are 

initiated by the transmission system 

operators when the threat of power 

outages is imminent and are critical to 

maintaining available power during 

periods of extreme load on the electric 

power infrastructure, according to the 

commenters. The events are rare and 

unplanned, out of the control of 

emergency engine owners/operators, 

and no power is supplied to the grid, 

but used at the individual facility, the 

commenter said. The commenter said 

that emergency DR events during the 

year are typically limited to no longer 

than 2 to 6 hours per event, with the 

number of events per year capped by the 

regional power pool. The commenter 

believed that, by establishing a 

subcategory for generators that serve 

facilities participating in a DR program 

and that only operate 200 hrs/yr, 

including any hours operated for 

maintenance purposes, EPA could 

require maintenance practices, and 

remove any disincentive that may be 

created over the increased 

administrative burden and potential 

post-combustion control retrofit costs if 

their emergency stationary RICE would 

be required to be re-characterized as 

‘‘non-emergency’’ in order to participate 

in DR programs. The commenter 

suggested that a 100 hour operating 

limit could also be considered as an 

alternative. Three commenters (stated 

that they receive many benefits from 

their participation in the local DR 

program, and that they use emergency 

DR events and tests events to replace 

some of the Joint Commission on 

Accreditation of Healthcare 

Organizations’ mandated hospital 

generator tests. According to the 

commenters the costs that they would 

have to absorb to meet the proposed 

emission limits would be prohibitive 

and that to require facilities to meet 

rigid emission limits with very little 

reduction in emissions is not 

encouraged. Emergency engines are 

used throughout the U.S. and provide 

vital safety requirements at hospitals 

and healthcare institutions, the 

commenters said. Commenters stated 

that emergency engines participating in 

emergency DR programs provide a 

critical service in stabilizing the electric 

grid on the rare occasions when the grid 

is about to fail. Many States endorse the 

use of emergency engines participating 

in emergency DR programs, according to 

commenter 82. Two commenters cited 

various DR programs in the New 

England area that existing engines 

participate in. A commenter provided 

detailed discussion of several 

emergency DR programs across the 

country, including States in New 

England, the Mid Atlantic and Midwest, 

and the South, that are supportive of 

using emergency engines as part of their 

emergency DR programs, and that 

accommodate operation of these engines 

through various definitions of 

emergency, or through permitting. The 

commenter concluded that it is very 

important that EPA not adopt rules that 

conflict with how much of the U.S. 

handles emergency DR. 

Response: EPA agrees that it would be 

appropriate to allow emergency engines 

to operate as part of emergency demand 

response programs for a limited number 

of hours of operation per year in 

situations where grid failure and a 

blackout are imminent. In the final rule, 

EPA has revised the requirements for 

emergency engines to reflect this. 

F. Emissions Data 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

believe that the emissions data for 

engines is not adequate to conduct an 

appropriate MACT floor analysis. EPA 

should collect additional data and redo 

the MACT floor analysis, according to 

numerous commenters. The 

commenters also stated that EPA did not 

consider emissions variability in setting 

the MACT floor. 

Commenters stated that the MACT 

floors should not be based on data using 

single measurements, when three 

measurements are a standard 

requirement for demonstrating 

compliance. In the absence of multiple 

measurements, outliers and erroneous 

errors cannot be caught, according to the 

commenters. 

The commenters said that EPA should 

use data from units of similar size to set 

standards for sources of the same size, 

e.g., emissions from a large engine 

should not be used to set standards for 

a 100 HP engine unless EPA can 

demonstrate that such an assumption is 

justified. The commenters are 

concerned that the data EPA has used 

for the MACT floor analysis is not 

representative of the current population 

of engines. 

Commenters criticized the 

applicability and use of the RICE 

emissions database as representative of 

the engines being regulated. One 

commenter noted that the 40 ppmvd 

numerical emissions limit for CO 

appears to be based on 10 tests of only 

one make and model of engine 

(Caterpillar, Model No. 3508) over a 

3-day period in the Research and 

Development Laboratory of CSU in 1999 

(Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708– 

0006). The commenter states that 

according to the engine population data 

presented in the impacts document in 

the docket (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0798–0028) the promulgated rule 

would impose limits on more than 

50,000 CI engines. The commenter 

believed that basing the limit on such a 

small and unrepresentative sample 

jeopardizes the accuracy of any 

assumptions made about the operational 

conditions or performance of the 

regulated population as well as the 

accuracy of any cost of compliance 

estimates, and leads to an 

underestimation of the impact of the 

rule. 

Response: Section 112(d)(3) of the 

CAA requires EPA to set MACT 

standards based on the test data that is 

available to the Agency and this is what 

EPA did at proposal. EPA recognizes 

that it had limited emissions test data at 

the time it developed the proposed rule. 

However, EPA notes that it used the 

data that was available at the time of 

proposal. EPA requested additional test 

data to supplement the emissions 

database during the development of 

previous rules for stationary engines 

and also in an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this rule and 

did not receive any data. EPA again 

requested additional test data during the 

comment period for the current engine 

rulemaking and made an additional 

effort post-proposal to reach out to 

industry and other sources in order to 

supplement the existing emission data 

set. EPA did receive additional 

emissions data for stationary CI engines 

during the post-proposal period for this 

rulemaking. The additional data include 

tests for 11 stationary engines, ranging 

in size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

inclusion of this additional data in the 

MACT floor analysis for the final rule 

addresses the commenters’ concerns 

about using data for one large engine to 

set the MACT floor for smaller engines. 

EPA understands the concerns of 

commenters with regard to whether the 

MACT floor analysis for the proposed 

rule took emissions variability 

appropriately into account. EPA took 

emissions variability into account to a 

greater degree when conducting the 

MACT floor analysis for the final rule. 

For engines where EPA had data for 

multiple tests on the same engine, EPA 

used the highest test run concentration 

as the representative emissions for that 

engine. EPA also used the lowest 

percent reduction observed in 

determining the percent reduction 

expected from applicable aftertreatment 

controls in determining beyond-thefloor MACT standards. Therefore, the 

variability in emissions from the engine 

was factored into the MACT floor 

analysis and the beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis. 

EPA does not agree that it would be 

inappropriate to use data from one run 

in setting MACT floors; using the 

highest run from the testing takes into 

account the variability of emissions. 

G. Final Rule Impacts 

Comment: Several commenters 

indicated that the costs are not 

representative of actual costs of 

implementing the rule and numerous 

commenters said that the proposed rule 

will have a significant financial impact 

on their sources. According to the 

commenters, EPA has underestimated 

the cost impacts of the rule by an order 

of magnitude or more. Numerous 

commenters indicated that EPA has 

used old, faulty, and inappropriate data 

on the cost of controls, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting to estimate 

the economic impacts of the rule. 

Commenters said that EPA should 

gather current information on the cost of 

controls and redo the cost calculations. 

The commenters provided specific 

examples of where they believe EPA has 

used inappropriate cost information. 

One concern expressed was that the cost 

of oxidation catalyst control for diesel 

engines was based on the cost of 

oxidation catalyst control for gas 

engines. Commenters also said that not 

all existing engines have hour meters. 

Commenters believed that EPA has 

underestimated the total cost of this rule 

by underestimating the number of 

engines requiring the addition of 

catalyst; assuming that catalysts can 

simply be added to effectively control 

existing engines; overlooking the 

significant cost of field installation; and 

underestimating the complexity of and 

administrative/operational burdens 

added by this rule. 

Several commenters provided 

comments about the economic impact of 

the rule on emergency units. One 

commenter stated that overall the cost 

per ton of HAP or CO removal would be 

excessive for emergency CI engines 

since emissions were well below a ton/ 

yr and the units use is very limited and 

intermittent. Another commenter noted 

that engine manufacturers do not 

recommend the use of after treatment 

devices for emergency engines, and that 

EPA appeared to support that position 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), 

which states that cost per ton removal 

of HAP ranged from $1 million to $2.8 

million for engines larger than 500 HP 

and from $3.7 million to $8.7 million for 

engines between 50 and 500 HP. One 

commenter said EPA does not appear to 

consider any costs associated with 

testing emergency engines, even though 

owners may deem it prudent to test to 

confirm they are meeting the standard 

rather than risk an enforcement action if 

the unit does not meet the standard. 

Testing to comply with the 100 percent 

load requirement will require owners to 

purchase or rent load banks to meet the 

conditions contemplated in the 

standard, which can cost up to $10,000 

per site. The load bank costs alone 

could add up to as much as $973 

million. In addition, equipment 

modifications (sample ports) would be 

necessary to test emissions, and EPA 

has not included these costs in its 

calculations. 

One commenter said that the 

proposed rule for existing CI engines 

greater than 300 HP at area sources is 

cost prohibitive for facilities with peak 

shaving engines with low operating 

hours. The commenter estimated that 

the cost per ton of HAP removed from 

these units would range from $200,000 

to $1 million, similar to the cost for 

emergency generators. 

While reducing HAP is an important 

goal, one commenter believed that the 

overbroad approach taken by EPA in 

subjecting all the RICE equipment in 

question to the requirements proposed, 

regardless of whether the equipment is 

located in urban or rural areas, 

particularly when considering the 

Congressional intent of reducing HAP in 

urban areas given the potential risks to 

public health, and the imposition of 

costs in excess of $528 million to reduce 

13,000 tons of HAP a year (i.e., a cost 

of $40,615 per ton) should be carefully 

scrutinized. 

One commenter noted an additional 

concern with the proposed rule is the 

potential impact of parasitic load 

resulting from the use of catalytic diesel 

particulate filters (CDPF) and oxidation 

catalysts. Some back pressure penalty is 

associated with the use of both CDPF 

and oxidation catalysts methods to 

control HAP, the back pressure can 

increase with time, which may require 

regeneration of the catalyst or changing 

filters. The commenter believed that for 

those utilities that operate RICE with 

only marginal excess capacity, addition 

of either type of control could require 

installation of additional RICE capacity 

to maintain the needed reliability level. 

The commenter noted that it will not be 

possible to design around the pressure 

drop for existing engines and that the 

penalty should have been addressed and 

included by EPA in the cost assessment 

of retrofit and operation for the control 

devices. 

Another commenter indicated that 

EPA’s estimates are low for the capital 

and operating costs associated with the 

use of catalytic control, and are based 

on pricing data from one vendor and a 

limited number of data points. The 

commenter asserted that EPA’s capital 

estimate and annual operating cost 

estimate for catalytic controls are each 

low by an order of magnitude of 2 to 3. 

The commenter also stated that because 

beyond-the-floor standards (which 

require catalytic controls) are based on 

the cost per ton of HAP removed and 

EPA significantly underestimated 

capital and operating costs of catalytic 

controls, EPA must reanalyze the 

proposed rule with better cost data to 

determine when catalysts are 

economically practical. 

One commenter said the cost 

information contained in the docket for 

test costs is not representative of the 

sampling costs required to comply with 

the standards as proposed. Members of 

the commenter’s organization indicated 

that the cost per sample run using 

Methods 1, 3, 4, and 10 could easily 

exceed $10,000, excluding costs to 

prepare for the sampling (i.e., 

scaffolding, stack extensions, etc.). In 

addition to these cost considerations, as 

a practical matter, there would be 

significant difficulty in performing these 

EPA test methods on engine exhaust. 

The commenter claimed that EPA has 

proposed compliance requirements that 

are more stringent than GACT 

requirements or management practices 

and that EPA has decided to institute 

MACT. However, even under MACT 

EPA can consider cost and energy 

impacts. The commenter disagreed with 

EPA’s conclusion in the RIA that the 

rule will not likely have a significant 

impact on the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy. The commenter said that 

the proposed standards could have a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9669 

very detrimental impact on energy 

reliability, and many units may have to 

be shut down due to the cost of 

compliance. 

Response: EPA used the information 

it had available at the time of proposal 

to estimate the cost impacts associated 

with the rule. This information included 

cost data obtained for the development 

of previous stationary engine 

rulemakings, which EPA believed 

would be appropriate to use for this 

rulemaking. Based on the significant 

number of comments received on the 

proposed rule costs, EPA revisited its 

cost analysis and assumptions 

underlying the proposed rule and 

revised that analysis and assumptions in 

the final rule. 

EPA has made several attempts to 

obtain more current cost information, 

including through an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this rule. EPA 

agrees with the commenters that it is 

inappropriate to base the cost for a 

diesel oxidation catalyst on the costs for 

oxidation catalysts for spark ignition 

engines. Therefore, EPA has based the 

catalyst cost estimate in the final rule on 

cost data for diesel oxidation catalysts 

obtained from a CARB study. More 

information on the cost estimate can be 

found in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Control Costs for Existing Stationary CI 

RICE.’’ The cost estimates are based on 

the use of diesel oxidation catalyst 

rather than CDPF because we believe 

that sources will choose to use 

oxidation catalyst control because they 

are less costly than CDPF and achieve 

similar reduction in HAP. Based on a 

reanalysis of the MACT floor data and 

above-the-floor options, taking 

variability into account, the final rule 

requires engines equipped with 

catalysts to achieve 70 percent 

reduction rather than the 90 percent that 

was proposed. 

Regarding the comment that catalysts 

cannot be added to existing engines, the 

commenter did not provide any 

information to show what engines 

would not be able to be retrofit. 

Regarding the concerns expressed about 

backpressure increases, the commenter 

did not provide any data to support the 

claim that the backpressure increases 

are so high that they would severely 

impact the engine output. 

EPA does not agree with the claim 

that the rule will put a strain on 

hospitals. The stationary diesel engines 

at hospitals are typically emergency 

engines and EPA has determined that 

emergency engines located at 

institutional facilities such as hospitals 

that are area sources are not part of the 

listed source category and are therefore 

not subject to the final rule. EPA does 

not agree with the commenters that it is 

not appropriate to require peaking units 

and stationary diesel engines that are 

located in rural areas to install controls. 

This is discussed in more detail in the 

summary of comments and responses. 

EPA has specified in the final rule that 

performance testing is not limited to 100 

percent load, so it should not be 

necessary to include the cost of a load 

bank in the performance testing cost. 

EPA has incorporated the costs for 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting in the cost analysis and 

believes that its estimates for these costs 

are appropriate. The costs for testing are 

based on information from source 

testing companies. As a result of the 

comments on testing costs, EPA 

reevaluated the estimate of how many 

engines could be tested in a single day 

and determined that two engines could 

be tested at a facility in one day, rather 

than three as was estimated in the 

proposal. 

Regarding the concerns expressed by 

the commenters about the impact of the 

rule on emergency engines, the final 

rule requires existing stationary 

emergency engines to meet work 

practice or management practice 

standards, rather than numeric emission 

limitations; these work practices and 

management practices do not require 

that these engines be retrofit with 

aftertreatment controls or be 

performance tested to determine 

compliance. Information provided to 

EPA by engine manufacturers indicates 

that most engines are already equipped 

with an hour meter; therefore, EPA did 

not add this cost into the rule. EPA does 

not believe that the final rule will cause 

owners/operators to replace their 

emergency engines. The final rule 

imposes work or management practices 

on these engines, which EPA believes 

will not be overly burdensome to 

facilities and will not cause the 

retirement of existing stationary 

emergency engines. 

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The final rule is expected to reduce 

total HAP emissions from stationary 

RICE by 1,010 tons per year (tpy) 

beginning in the year 2013 or the first 

year the rule will become effective. EPA 

estimates that over 900,000 stationary CI 

engines will be subject to the rule. 

These estimates include stationary 

engines located at major and area 

sources; however, not all stationary 

engines are subject to numerical 

emission standards. Further information 

regarding the estimated reductions of 

the final rule can be found in the 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Impacts 

Associated with NESHAP for Existing 

Stationary RICE,’’ which is available in 

the docket. 

In addition to HAP emissions 

reductions, the final rule will reduce 

other pollutants such as CO, PM, SOX, 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC). 

The final rule is expected to reduce 

emissions of CO by 14,000 tpy in the 

year 2013. Reductions of PM are 

estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year 2013. 

Emissions of VOC are estimated to be 

reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year 2013. 

The final rule will also reduce 

emissions of SOX through the use of 

ULSD. We have not quantified the SOX

reductions that would occur as a result 

of engines switching to ULSD because 

we are unable to estimate the number of 

engines that already use ULSD and 

therefore we are unable to estimate the 

percentage of engines that may switch to 

ULSD due to this rule. If none of the 

affected engines would use ULSD 

without this rule, then we estimate the 

SOX reductions are 31,000 tpy in the 

year 2013. If all of the affected engines 

would use ULSD regardless of the rule, 

then the additional SOX reductions 

would be zero. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

The total national capital cost for the 

final rule for existing stationary RICE is 

estimated to be $744 million, with a 

total national annual cost of $373 

million in year 2013 (the first year the 

rule is implemented). Further 

information regarding the estimated cost 

impacts of this proposed rule can be 

found in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Impacts Associated with NESHAP for 

Existing Stationary CI RICE,’’ which is 

available in the docket. 

C. What are the benefits? 

We calculated the benefits of this rule 

in terms of the co-benefits associated 

with reducing fine particulate matter 

(PM) rather than calculating the benefits 

associated with reducing hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). These PM reductions 

are a consequence of the technologies 

installed to reduce HAP emissions from 

RICE. We estimate the monetized PM2.5

co-benefits of this final regulatory action 

to be $940 million to $2.3 billion 

(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) in the 

fifth year (2013). The PM2.5 co-benefits 

at a 7 percent discount rate are $850 

million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Because 

the magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is 

largely driven by the concentrationresponse function for premature 

mortality, we examined alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment 

of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine 

Particulate Matter in the U.S. Environ. Sci. 

Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 5Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The 

influence of location, source, and emission type in 

estimates of the human health benefits of reducing 

a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health (2009) 

2:169–176. 

6Pope et al, 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association 287:1132– 

1141. 7Laden et al, 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine Particulate 

Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American Journal of 

Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667– 

672. 

8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

experts. Higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates above.4

A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 4 of 

this preamble. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR FINAL RICE NESHAP 

[Millions of 2008$] 

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(3% discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7% discount) 

Direct PM2.5 ............................................. 2,844 $910 to $2,200 ........................................ $820 to $2,000. 

PM2.5 Precursors: 

VOC .................................................. 27,395 $33 to $82 ............................................... $30 to $74. 

Total .......................................... ........................ $940 to $2,300 ........................................ $850 to $2,100. 

Note: All estimates are for the analysis year (the fifth year), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of 

precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5. We assume that all PM reductions for this rule are PM2.5 reductions. Benefits from 

reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included. 

The benefits estimates of populationlevel improvements to human health 

from reductions in PM2.5 air pollution. 

We generated estimates that represent 

the total monetized human health cobenefits (the sum of premature mortality 

and morbidity) of reducing a ton of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. 

We base the estimate of human health 

co-benefits derived from the PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursor emission reductions on 

the general approach and methodology 

laid out in the Technical Support 

Document that accompanied the RIA for 

the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ground-level Ozone 

(NAAQS) and Fann et al. (2009).5

To generate the benefit-per-ton 

estimates, we used a model to convert 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors into changes in PM2.5 air 

quality and another model to estimate 

the changes in human health based on 

that change in air quality. Finally, the 

monetized health co-benefits were 

divided by the emission reductions to 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

Even though we assume that all fine 

particles have equivalent health effects, 

the benefit-per-ton estimates vary 

between precursors because each ton of 

precursor reduced has a different 

propensity to form PM2.5. For example, 

SOX has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate 

than direct PM2.5 because it does not 

form as much PM2.5, thus the exposure 

would be lower, and the monetized 

health co-benefits would be lower. 

For context, it is important to note 

that the magnitude of the PM benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. Experts have advised EPA to 

consider a variety of assumptions, 

including estimates based both on 

empirical (epidemiological) studies and 

judgments elicited from scientific 

experts, to characterize the uncertainty 

in the relationship between PM2.5

concentrations and premature mortality. 

For this final rule we cite two key 

empirical studies, one based on the 

American Cancer Society cohort study 6

and the extended Six Cities cohort 

study.7

EPA strives to use the best available 

science to support our benefits analyses. 

We recognize that interpretation of the 

science regarding air pollution and 

health is dynamic and evolving. The 

question of whether or not to assume a 

threshold in calculating the co-benefits 

associated with reductions in PM2.5 is 

an issue that affects the benefits 

calculations for many EPA rulemakings 

and analyses. Due to these implications, 

we solicited comment on 

appropriateness of both the nothreshold and threshold model for PM 

benefits analysis as part of the Portland 

Cement NESHAP (May 2009). The 

comment period closed on September 4, 

2009, and EPA is still reviewing those 

comments. Since then, EPA finalized 

the Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter,8 which was 

reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee. Based on EPA’s 

review of the body of scientific 

literature and the Integrated Science 

Assessment, EPA has concluded that the 

no-threshold model most adequately 

portrays the relationship between fine 

particles and premature mortality. 

Although this document does not 

necessarily represent agency policy, it 

provides a basis for reconsidering the 

application of thresholds in PM2.5

concentration-response functions used 

in EPA’s RIAs. 

The PM2.5 co-benefits for the 

incremental emission reductions from 

this final regulatory action reflect EPA’s 

most current interpretation of the 

scientific literature, including four key 

changes from previous analyses for 

refineries: (1) A no-threshold model for 

PM2.5 that calculates incremental cobenefits down to the lowest modeled air 

quality levels; (2) a revised Value of a 

Statistical Life (VSL); (3) two technical 

updates to the population dataset and 

aggregation method; and (4) 

presentation of results derived from 

Pope et al. (2002) and Laden et al. 

(2006) instead of using the extremes of 

EPA’s Expert Elicitation on PM 

Mortality (Roman et al., 2008). For more 

information on the updates to the 

benefit estimates, please refer to the RIA 

for this rule, which is available in the 

docket. 

It should be noted that the PM2.5 cobenefits estimates provided above do 

not include benefits from reduced 

hazardous air pollutants, improved 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9671 

visibility, reduced aquatic and 

terrestrial acidification. The benefits 

from reducing 1,014 tons of HAPs each 

year have not been monetized in this 

analysis. We do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to 

provide such estimates for this 

rulemaking. In addition, we have not 

quantified the benefits attributable to 

the SO2 reductions that would occur as 

a result of these engines switching to 

ULSD. Although we are confident that 

some SO2 reductions would occur as a 

result of this rule, we are unable to 

estimate the percentage of engines that 

may switch to ULSD in the absence of 

this rule or the number of engines that 

already use ULSD. As a PM2.5 precursor, 

these SO2 emission reductions would 

lead to fewer PM2.5-related health 

effects. Because of uncertainty in the 

magnitude of the attributable SO2

reductions and to avoid the appearance 

of double-counting, we have chosen to 

not include these estimates in the 

results table shown above. If none of the 

affected engines would use ULSD 

without this rule, then we estimate the 

additional monetized PM2.5-related 

health co-benefits would be $720 

million to $1.8 billion in 2013 (2008$, 

3% discount rate). If all of the affected 

engines would use ULSD regardless of 

the rule, then the additional monetized 

co-benefits from SO2 reductions would 

be zero. 

This analysis does not include the 

type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA 

because we lack the necessary air 

quality input and monitoring data to run 

the benefits model. However, the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 

provides an indication of the sensitivity 

of our results to the use of alternative 

concentration response functions, 

including those derived from the PM 

expert elicitation study. 

The costs of this rulemaking are 

estimated to be $373 million (2008$) in 

the fifth year, and the monetized PM2.5

co-benefits are estimated at $940 million 

to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3 percent 

discount rate) for that same year. The 

co-benefits at a 7 percent discount rate 

are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$). 

Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are 

estimated at $570 million to $1.9 billion 

(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and 

$480 million to $1.7 billion (2008$, 7 

percent discount rate). Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between the 

two estimates we present above. EPA 

believes that the co-benefits are likely to 

exceed the costs even when taking into 

account the uncertainties in the cost and 

benefit estimates. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rulemaking, which is available in the 

docket. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The economic impact analysis (EIA) 

that is included in the RIA indicates 

that prices of affected output from the 

affected industries will increase as a 

result of the rule, but the changes will 

be small. The largest impacts are on the 

electric power generating industry 

because it bears more costs from the rule 

than any other affected industry (nearly 

80 percent of the total annualized costs). 

For all affected industries, annualized 

compliance costs are 0.6 percent or less 

on average of sales for firms. Thus, 

output prices will not increase more 

than 0.6 percent for consumers and 

producers affected by this rule. 

Based on the estimated compliance 

costs associated with this rule and the 

predicted changes in prices and output 

in affected markets, the estimated social 

costs are $373 million (2008 dollars), 

which is the same as the estimated 

compliance costs. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rulemaking, which is available in the 

docket. 

E. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

EPA does not anticipate any 

significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a 

result of the final rule. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to 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. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the final rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The information collection activities 

in this final rule include performance 

testing for non-emergency engines larger 

than 100 HP, one-time notifications and 

periodic reports, recording information, 

monitoring and the maintenance of 

records. The information generated by 

these activities will be used by EPA to 

ensure that affected facilities comply 

with the emission limits and other 

requirements. Records and reports are 

necessary to enable EPA or States to 

identify affected facilities that may not 

be in compliance with the requirements. 

Based on reported information, EPA 

will decide which units and what 

records or processes should be 

inspected. The amendments do 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. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to EPA for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made will be 

safeguarded according to EPA policies 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, 

Confidentiality of Business Information. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after 

sources must comply) is estimated to be 

2,232,379 labor hours per year at a total 

annual cost of $4,200,492. This estimate 

includes notifications of compliance 

and performance tests, engine 

performance testing, semiannual 

compliance reports, continuous 

monitoring, and recordkeeping. The 

total capital costs associated with the 

requirements over the 3-year period of 

the ICR is estimated to be $20,444,316 

per year. There are no additional 

operation and maintenance costs for the 

requirements over the 3-year period of 

the ICR. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. The companies 

owning facilities with affected RICE can 

be grouped into small and large 

categories using Small Business 

Administration (SBA) general size 

standard definitions. Size standards are 

based on industry classification codes 

(i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that 

each company uses to identify the 

industry or industries in which they 

operate in. The SBA defines a small 

business in terms of the maximum 

employment, annual sales, or annual 

energy-generating capacity (for 

electricity generating units—EGUs) of 

the owning entity. These thresholds 

vary by industry and are evaluated 

based on the primary industry 

classification of the affected companies. 

In cases where companies are classified 

by multiple NAICS codes, the most 

conservative SBA definition (i.e., the 

NAICS code with the highest employee 

or revenue size standard) was used. 

As mentioned earlier in this 

preamble, facilities across several 

industries use affected RICE; therefore, 

a number of size standards are utilized 

in this analysis. For the 9 industries 

identified at the 6-digit NAICS code 

represented in this analysis, the 

employment size standard varies from 

500 to 1,000 employees. The annual 

sales standard is as low as 0.75 million 

dollars and as high as 34 million 

dollars. In addition, for the electric 

power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate 

parent entity defined as having a total 

electric output of 4 million megawatthours (MW-hr) in the previous fiscal 

year. The specific SBA size standard is 

identified for each affected industry 

within the industry profile to support 

this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This certification is based on the 

economic impact of this final action to 

all affected small entities across all 

industries affected. We estimate that all 

small entities will have annualized costs 

of less than 1 percent of their sales in 

all industries except NAICS 2211 

(electric power generation, 

transmission, and distribution) and 

NAICS 111 (Crop and Animal 

Production). For these industries, the 

number of small entities having 

annualized costs of greater than 1 

percent of their sales is less than 5 

percent. Hence, we conclude that there 

is no significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) for this rule. 

For more information on the small 

entity impacts associated with the final 

rule, please refer to the Economic 

Impact and Small Business Analyses in 

the public docket. These analyses can be 

found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for this final rule. 

Although the final rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the 

impact of the final rule on small 

entities. When developing the revised 

standards, EPA took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on 

small entities were minimal. EPA 

conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss 

regulatory options and the 

corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. In this 

rule, we are applying the minimum 

level of control (i.e., the MACT floor) to 

small engines and emergency engines 

located at major HAP sources and the 

minimum level of testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting to affected 

RICE sources, both major and area, 

allowed by the CAA. Other alternatives 

considered that provided more than the 

minimum level of control were deemed 

as not technically feasible or costeffective for EPA to implement for small 

engines and emergency engines as 

explained earlier in the preamble. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This final 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, EPA has prepared 

under section 202 of the UMRA a 

written statement which is summarized 

below. 

As discussed previously in this 

preamble, the statutory authority for the 

final rule is section 112 of the CAA. 

Section 112(b) lists the 189 chemicals, 

compounds, or groups of chemicals 

deemed by Congress to be HAP. These 

toxic air pollutants are to be regulated 

by NESHAP. Section 112(d) of the CAA 

directs us to develop NESHAP based on 

MACT, which require existing and new 

major sources to control emissions of 

HAP. EPA is required to address HAP 

emissions from stationary RICE located 

at area sources under section 112(k) of 

the CAA, based on criteria set forth by 

EPA in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

previously discussed in this preamble. 

These NESHAP apply to existing 

stationary CI RICE less than or equal to 

500 HP located at major sources of HAP 

emissions, existing non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE greater than 300 HP, 

and existing stationary CI RICE located 

at area sources of HAP emissions. 

In compliance with section 205(a), we 

identified and considered a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives. EPA 

carefully examined the regulatory 

alternatives, and selected the lowest 

cost/least burdensome alternative that 

EPA deems adequate to achieve the 

statutory requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 112 and effectively reduce 

emissions of HAP. 

1. Social Costs and Benefits 

The RIA prepared for the final rule, 

including the Agency’s assessment of 

costs and benefits, is detailed in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final RICE NESHAP’’ in the docket. 

Based on estimated compliance costs on 

all sources associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and 

production in the affected industries 

assuming passthrough of costs to 

affected consumers, the estimated social 

costs of the final rule are $373 million 

(2008 dollars). It is estimated that by 

2013, HAP will be reduced by 1,010 tpy 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9673 

due to reductions in formaldehyde, 

acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and 

other HAP from existing stationary 

RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde 

have been classified as ‘‘probable human 

carcinogens.’’ Acrolein and the other 

HAP are not considered carcinogenic, 

but produce several other toxic effects. 

The final rule is expected to reduce 

emissions of CO by more than 14,000 

tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM 

are estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year 

2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated to 

be reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year 

2013. Exposure to CO can affect the 

cardiovascular system and the central 

nervous system. 

The total monetized benefits of the 

final rule range from $940 million to 

$2.3 billion (2008 dollars). 

2. Future and Disproportionate Costs 

The UMRA requires that we estimate, 

where accurate estimation is reasonably 

feasible, future compliance costs 

imposed by the rule and any 

disproportionate budgetary effects. Our 

estimates of the future compliance costs 

of the final rule are discussed 

previously in this preamble. We do not 

believe that there will be any 

disproportionate budgetary effects of the 

final rule on any particular areas of the 

country, State or local governments, 

types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), 

or particular industry segments. 

3. Effects on the National Economy 

The UMRA requires that we estimate 

the effect of the final rule on the 

national economy. To the extent 

feasible, we must estimate the effect on 

productivity, economic growth, full 

employment, creation of productive 

jobs, and international competitiveness 

of the U.S. goods and services if we 

determine that accurate estimates are 

reasonably feasible and that such effect 

is relevant and material. The nationwide 

economic impact of the final rule is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for RICE NESHAP’’ in the 

docket. This analysis provides estimates 

of the effect of the final rule on most of 

the categories mentioned above. The 

results of the economic impact analysis 

were summarized previously in this 

preamble. In addition, we have 

determined that the final rule contains 

no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The final rule 

primarily affects private industry, and 

does not impose significant economic 

costs on State or local governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to the final rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to the final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse impact on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

EPA has prepared an analysis of energy 

impacts that explains this conclusion as 

follows below. 

With respect to energy supply and 

prices, our analysis suggests that at the 

industry level, the annualized costs 

represent a very small fraction of 

revenue (generally less than 0.6 

percent). As a result, we can conclude 

supply and price impacts on affected 

energy producers and consumers should 

be small. 

To enhance understanding regarding 

the regulation’s influence on energy 

consumption, we examined publicly 

available data describing energy 

consumption for the electric power 

sector. The electric power sector is 

expected to incur about 80 percent of 

the $373 million in compliance costs 

associated with the final rule, and is the 

industry expected to incur the greatest 

share of the costs relative to other 

affected industries. The Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 (EIA, 2009) provides 

energy consumption data. Since this 

final rule only affects diesel-fired RICE, 

our analysis focuses on impacts of 

consumption of these fuels. As shown 

in Table 5 of this preamble, the electric 

power sector accounts for less than 0.5 

percent of the U.S. total liquid fuels 

(which includes diesel fuel). As a result, 

any energy consumption changes 

attributable to the final rule should not 

significantly influence the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy 

nationwide. 

TABLE 5—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION

[Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013 

Quantity 

Share of total 

energy use 

(percent) 

Distillate fuel oil ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.12 0.1 

Residual fuel oil ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.34 0.3 

Liquid fuels subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. 0.45 0.5 

Natural gas .............................................................................................................................................................. 5.17 5.1 

Steam coal ............................................................................................................................................................... 20.69 20.6 

Nuclear power .......................................................................................................................................................... 8.59 8.5 

Renewable energy b ................................................................................................................................................. 6.06 6.0 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION—Continued 

[Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013 

Quantity 

Share of total 

energy use 

(percent) 

Electricity Imports .................................................................................................................................................... 0.09 0.1 

Total Electric Power Energy Consumption c .................................................................................................... 41.18 40.9 

Delivered Energy Use .............................................................................................................................................. 72.41 72.0 

Total Energy Use .............................................................................................................................................. 100.59 100.0 

a Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public. Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators. b Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, other biomass, petroleum coke, wind, 

photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. Excludes net electricity imports. c Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above. 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, 

Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

This final rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of 

Subpart A of the General Provisions, a 

source may apply to EPA for permission 

to use alternative test methods or 

alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required or referenced 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This rule is a 

nationwide standard that reduces air 

toxics emissions from existing 

stationary CI engines, thus decreasing 

the amount of such emissions to which 

all affected populations are exposed. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

final rule will be effective on May 3, 

2010. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 17, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is 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. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.6590 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) An affected source which meets 

either of the criteria in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section does 

not have to meet the requirements of 

this subpart and of subpart A of this part 

except for the initial notification 

requirements of § 63.6645(f). 

* * * * * 

(3) A stationary RICE which is an 

existing spark ignition 4 stroke rich 

burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at 

an area source of HAP emissions; an 

existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of less than or 

equal to 500 brake HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions; an existing 

spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn (2SLB) 

stationary RICE; an existing spark 

ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB) 

stationary RICE; an existing 

compression ignition emergency 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9675 

major source of HAP emissions; an 

existing spark ignition emergency or 

limited use stationary RICE; an existing 

limited use stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions; an existing stationary RICE 

that combusts landfill gas or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; or 

an existing stationary residential, 

commercial, or institutional emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions, does not have to 

meet the requirements of this subpart 

and of subpart A of this part. No initial 

notification is necessary. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.6595 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6595 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary 

RICE, excluding existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you 

must comply with the applicable 

emission limitations and operating 

limitations no later than June 15, 2007. 

If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, an 

existing stationary CI RICE with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, or an existing stationary CI 

RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and 

operating limitations no later than May 

3, 2013. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.6600 is amended by 

adding an introductory paragraph, 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6600 What emission limitations and 

operating limitations must I meet if I own or 

operate a stationary RICE with a site rating 

of more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions? 

Compliance with the numerical 

emission limitations established in this 

subpart is based on the results of testing 

the average of three 1-hour runs using 

the testing requirements and procedures 

in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you own or operate any of the 

following stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you do not need to comply 

with the emission limitations in Tables 

1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart or 

operating limitations in Tables 1b and 

2b to this subpart: an existing 2SLB 

stationary RICE; an existing 4SLB 

stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that 

combusts landfill gas or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; an 

emergency stationary RICE; or a limited 

use stationary RICE. 

(d) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency stationary CI RICE with 

a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the 

emission limitations in Table 2c to this 

subpart and the operating limitations in 

Table 2b to this subpart which apply to 

you. 

■ 5. Section 63.6601 is amended by 

adding a sentence at the beginning of 

the section to read as follows: 

§ 63.6601 What emission limitations must I 

meet if I own or operate a 4SLB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of greater than or 

equal to 250 brake HP and less than 500 

brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions? 

Compliance with the numerical 

emission limitations established in this 

subpart is based on the results of testing 

the average of three 1-hour runs using 

the testing requirements and procedures 

in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

* * * 

■ 6. Section 63.6602 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6602 What emission limitations must I 

meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of equal 

to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions? 

If you own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of 

equal to or less than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the 

emission limitations in Table 2c to this 

subpart which apply to you. 

Compliance with the numerical 

emission limitations established in this 

subpart is based on the results of testing 

the average of three 1-hour runs using 

the testing requirements and procedures 

in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

■ 7. Section 63.6603 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6603 What emission limitations and 

operating limitations must I meet if I own or 

operate an existing stationary CI RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions? 

Compliance with the numerical 

emission limitations established in this 

subpart is based on the results of testing 

the average of three 1-hour runs using 

the testing requirements and procedures 

in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE located at an area 

source of HAP emissions, you must 

comply with the requirements in Table 

2d to this subpart and the operating 

limitations in Table 2b to this subpart 

which apply to you. 

(b) If you own or operate an existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

greater than 300 HP located at area 

sources in areas of Alaska not accessible 

by the Federal Aid Highway System 

(FAHS) you do not have to meet the 

numerical CO emission limitations 

specified in Table 2d to this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE greater than 300 HP located at area 

sources in areas of Alaska not accessible 

by the FAHS must meet the 

management practices that are shown 

for stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d 

to this subpart. 

■ 8. Section 63.6604 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6604 What fuel requirements must I 

meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE? 

If you own or operate an existing nonemergency CI stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 300 brake HP with 

a displacement of less than 30 liters per 

cylinder that uses diesel fuel, you must 

use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel. Existing nonemergency CI stationary RICE located in 

Guam, American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, or at area sources in areas of 

Alaska not accessible by the FAHS are 

exempt from the requirements of this 

section. 

■ 9. Section 63.6605 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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. 

(b) At all times you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

you to make any further efforts to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

this standard have been achieved. 

Determination of whether such 

operation and maintenance procedures 

are being used will be based on 

information available to the 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.6612 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6612 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations if I own or 

operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions or an existing stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions? 

If you own or operate an existing CI 

stationary RICE with a site rating of less 

than or equal to 500 brake HP located 

at a major source of HAP emissions or 

an existing stationary CI RICE located at 

an area source of HAP emissions you are 

subject to the requirements of this 

section. 

(a) You must conduct any initial 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration according to 

Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart that apply 

to you within 180 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). 

(b) An owner or operator is not 

required to conduct an initial 

performance test on a unit for which a 

performance test has been previously 

conducted, but the test must meet all of 

the conditions described in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) The test must have been 

conducted using the same methods 

specified in this subpart, and these 

methods must have been followed 

correctly. 

(2) The test must not be older than 2 

years. 

(3) The test must be reviewed and 

accepted by the Administrator. 

(4) Either no process or equipment 

changes must have been made since the 

test was performed, or the owner or 

operator must be able to demonstrate 

that the results of the performance test, 

with or without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

or equipment changes. 

■ 11. Section 63.6620 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6620 What performance tests and 

other procedures must I use? 

* * * * * 

(b) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements that this subpart specifies 

in Table 4 to this subpart. If you own 

or operate a non-operational stationary 

RICE that is subject to performance 

testing, you do not need to start up the 

engine solely to conduct the 

performance test. Owners and operators 

of a non-operational engine can conduct 

the performance test when the engine is 

started up again. 

(c) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.6625 is amended by 

revising the section heading and adding 

new paragraphs (e) through (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6625 What are my monitoring, 

installation, collection, operation, and 

maintenance requirements? 

* * * * * 

(e) If you own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE with a site rating of less 

than 100 brake HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions, an existing 

stationary emergency RICE, or an 

existing stationary RICE located at an 

area source of HAP emissions not 

subject to any numerical emission 

standards shown in Table 2d to this 

subpart, you must operate and maintain 

the stationary RICE and after-treatment 

control device (if any) according to the 

manufacturer’s emission-related written 

instructions or develop your own 

maintenance plan which must provide 

to the extent practicable for the 

maintenance and operation of the 

engine in a manner consistent with good 

air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. 

(f) If you own or operate an existing 

emergency stationary RICE with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions or an existing emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions, you must install a 

non-resettable hour meter if one is not 

already installed. 

(g) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency CI engine greater than or 

equal to 300 HP that is not equipped 

with a closed crankcase ventilation 

system, you must comply with either 

paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of 

this section. Owners and operators must 

follow the manufacturer’s specified 

maintenance requirements for operating 

and maintaining the open or closed 

crankcase ventilation systems and 

replacing the crankcase filters, or can 

request the Administrator to approve 

different maintenance requirements that 

are as protective as manufacturer 

requirements. Existing CI engines 

located at area sources in areas of 

Alaska not accessible by the FAHS do 

not have to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (g) in this section. 

(1) Install a closed crankcase 

ventilation system that prevents 

crankcase emissions from being emitted 

to the atmosphere, or 

(2) Install an open crankcase filtration 

emission control system that reduces 

emissions from the crankcase by 

filtering the exhaust stream to remove 

oil mist, particulates, and metals. 

(h) If you operate a new or existing 

stationary engine, you must minimize 

the engine’s time spent at idle during 

startup and minimize the engine’s 

startup time to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe loading of the 

engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after 

which time the emission standards 

applicable to all times other than startup 

in Tables 1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this 

subpart apply. 

(i) If you own or operate a stationary 

engine that is subject to the work, 

operation or management practices in 

items 1, 2, or 4 of Table 2c to this 

subpart or in items 1 or 4 of Table 2d 

to this subpart, you have the option of 

utilizing an oil analysis program in 

order to extend the specified oil change 

requirement in Tables 2c and 2d to this 

subpart. The oil analysis must be 

performed at the same frequency 

specified for changing the oil in Table 

2c or 2d to this subpart. The analysis 

program must at a minimum analyze the 

following three parameters: Total Base 

Number, viscosity, and percent water 

content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total 

Base Number is less than 30 percent of 

the Total Base Number of the oil when 

new; viscosity of the oil has changed by 

more than 20 percent from the viscosity 

of the oil when new; or percent water 

content (by volume) is greater than 0.5. 

If all of these condemning limits are not 

exceeded, the engine owner or operator 

is not required to change the oil. If any 

of the limits are exceeded, the engine 

owner or operator must change the oil 

before continuing to use the engine. The 

owner or operator must keep records of 

the parameters that are analyzed as part 

of the program, the results of the 

analysis, and the oil changes for the 

engine. The analysis program must be 

part of the maintenance plan for the 

engine. 

■ 13. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

■ (a) Revising paragraph (a); 

■ (b) Revising paragraph (b); 

■ (c) Revising paragraph (d); 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9677 

■ (d) Revising paragraph (e); and 

■ (e) Adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6640 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and operating limitations? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and operating limitation in 

Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, 

Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart 

that apply to you according to methods 

specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each emission 

limitation or operating limitation in 

Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, 

Table 2c, and Table 2d to 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, 

you must reestablish the values of the 

operating parameters measured during 

the initial performance test. When you 

reestablish the values of your operating 

parameters, you must also conduct a 

performance test to demonstrate that 

you are meeting the required emission 

limitation applicable to your stationary 

RICE. 

* * * * * 

(d) For new, reconstructed, and 

rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations from 

the emission or operating limitations 

that occur during the first 200 hours of 

operation from engine startup (engine 

burn-in period) are not violations. 

Rebuilt stationary RICE means a 

stationary RICE that has been rebuilt as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR 94.11(a). 

(e) You must also report each instance 

in which you did not meet the 

requirements in Table 8 to this subpart 

that apply to you. If you own or operate 

a new or reconstructed stationary RICE 

with a site rating of less than or equal 

to 500 brake HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions (except new or 

reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than 

or equal to 250 and less than or equal 

to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions, or any of the 

following RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you do 

not need to comply with the 

requirements in Table 8 to this subpart: 

An existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an 

existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an 

existing emergency stationary RICE, an 

existing limited use stationary RICE, or 

an existing stationary RICE which fires 

landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 

10 percent or more of the gross heat 

input on an annual basis. If you own or 

operate any of the following RICE with 

a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you do not need to comply 

with the requirements in Table 8 to this 

subpart, except for the initial 

notification requirements: a new or 

reconstructed stationary RICE that 

combusts landfill gas or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis, a 

new or reconstructed emergency 

stationary RICE, or a new or 

reconstructed limited use stationary 

RICE. 

(f) If you own or operate an existing 

emergency stationary RICE with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, a new emergency stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions that was installed on or 

after June 12, 2006, or an existing 

emergency stationary RICE located at an 

area source of HAP emissions, you must 

operate the engine according to the 

conditions described in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) For owners and operators of 

emergency engines, any operation other 

than emergency operation, maintenance 

and testing, and operation in nonemergency situations for 50 hours per 

year, as permitted in this section, is 

prohibited. 

(2) There is no time limit on the use 

of emergency stationary RICE in 

emergency situations. 

(3) You may operate your emergency 

stationary RICE for the purpose of 

maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, provided that the tests are 

recommended by Federal, State or local 

government, the manufacturer, the 

vendor, or the insurance company 

associated with the engine. Maintenance 

checks and readiness testing of such 

units is limited to 100 hours per year. 

The owner or operator may petition the 

Administrator for approval of additional 

hours to be used for maintenance checks 

and readiness testing, but a petition is 

not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that 

Federal, State, or local standards require 

maintenance and testing of emergency 

RICE beyond 100 hours per year. 

(4) You may operate your emergency 

stationary RICE up to 50 hours per year 

in non-emergency situations, but those 

50 hours are counted towards the 100 

hours per year provided for 

maintenance and testing. The 50 hours 

per year for non-emergency situations 

cannot be used for peak shaving or to 

generate income for a facility to supply 

power to an electric grid or otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity; except 

that owners and operators may operate 

the emergency engine for a maximum of 

15 hours per year as part of a demand 

response program if the regional 

transmission organization or equivalent 

balancing authority and transmission 

operator has determined there are 

emergency conditions that could lead to 

a potential electrical blackout, such as 

unusually low frequency, equipment 

overload, capacity or energy deficiency, 

or unacceptable voltage level. The 

engine may not be operated for more 

than 30 minutes prior to the time when 

the emergency condition is expected to 

occur, and the engine operation must be 

terminated immediately after the facility 

is notified that the emergency condition 

is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per 

year of demand response operation are 

counted as part of the 50 hours of 

operation per year provided for nonemergency situations. The supply of 

emergency power to another entity or 

entities pursuant to financial 

arrangement is not limited by this 

paragraph (f)(4), as long as the power 

provided by the financial arrangement is 

limited to emergency power. 

■ 14. Section 63.6645 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 if you own or operate 

any of the following; 

(1) An existing stationary CI RICE 

with a site rating of less than or equal 

to 500 brake HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions. 

(2) An existing stationary CI RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

(3) A stationary RICE with a site rating 

of more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(4) A new or reconstructed 4SLB 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

greater than or equal to 250 HP located 

at a major source of HAP emissions. 

(5) This requirement does not apply if 

you own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE less than 100 HP, an 

existing stationary emergency CI RICE, 

or an existing stationary CI RICE that is 

not subject to any numerical emission 

standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.6650 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4) to read 

as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.6650 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(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 (b)(9) of this section. 

(1) For semiannual Compliance 

reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance 

reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance 

reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance 

reports, 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 (b)(4) of this section. 

(6) For annual Compliance reports, 

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 

December 31. 

(7) For annual Compliance reports, 

the first Compliance report must be 

postmarked or delivered no later than 

January 31 following the end of the first 

calendar year after the compliance date 

that is specified for your affected source 

in § 63.6595. 

(8) For annual Compliance reports, 

each subsequent Compliance report 

must cover the annual reporting period 

from January 1 through December 31. 

(9) For annual Compliance reports, 

each subsequent Compliance report 

must be postmarked or delivered no 

later than January 31. 

(c) * * * 

(4) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction which 

occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused 

any applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.6605(b), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.6655 is amended by: 

■ (a) Revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text; 

■ (b) Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ (c) Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

■ (d) Adding paragraph (a)(5); 

■ (e) Adding paragraph (e); and 

■ (f) Adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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)(5), (b)(1) 

through (b)(3) and (c) of this section. 

(1) * * * 

(2) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(3) * * * 

(4) Records of all required 

maintenance performed on the air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(5) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.6605(b), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

* * * * * 

(e) You must keep records of the 

maintenance conducted on the 

stationary RICE in order to demonstrate 

that you operated and maintained the 

stationary RICE and after-treatment 

control device (if any) according to your 

own maintenance plan if you own or 

operate any of the following stationary 

RICE; 

(1) An existing stationary CI RICE 

with a site rating of less than 100 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

(2) An existing stationary emergency 

CI RICE. 

(3) An existing stationary CI RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions subject to management 

practices as shown in Table 2d to this 

subpart. 

(f) If you own or operate any of the 

stationary RICE in paragraphs (f)(1) or 

(2) of this section, you must keep 

records of the hours of operation of the 

engine that is recorded through the nonresettable hour meter. The owner or 

operator must document how many 

hours are spent for emergency 

operation, including what classified the 

operation as emergency and how many 

hours are spent for non-emergency 

operation. If the engines are used for 

demand response operation, the owner 

or operator must keep records of the 

notification of the emergency situation, 

and the time the engine was operated as 

part of demand response. 

(1) An existing emergency stationary 

CI RICE with a site rating of less than 

or equal to 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions that 

does not meet the standards applicable 

to non-emergency engines. 

(2) An existing emergency stationary 

CI RICE located at an area source of 

HAP emissions that does not meet the 

standards applicable to non-emergency 

engines. 

■ 17. Section 63.6660 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6660 In what form and how long must 

I keep my records? 

* * * * * 

(c) You must keep each record readily 

accessible in hard copy or electronic 

form for at least 5 years after the date 

of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, 

or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

■ 18. Section 63.6665 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6665 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 8 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If 

you own or operate a new or 

reconstructed stationary RICE with a 

site rating of less than or equal to 500 

brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions (except new or 

reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than 

or equal to 250 and less than or equal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9679 

to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions, or any of the 

following RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you do 

not need to comply with any of the 

requirements of the General Provisions 

specified in Table 8: An existing 2SLB 

stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB 

stationary RICE, an existing stationary 

RICE that combusts landfill or digester 

gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of 

the gross heat input on an annual basis, 

an existing emergency stationary RICE, 

or an existing limited use stationary 

RICE. If you own or operate any of the 

following RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you do 

not need to comply with the 

requirements in the General Provisions 

specified in Table 8 except for the initial 

notification requirements: A new 

stationary RICE that combusts landfill 

gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 

percent or more of the gross heat input 

on an annual basis, a new emergency 

stationary RICE, or a new limited use 

stationary RICE. 

■ 19. Section 63.6675 is amended: 

■ (a) By revising the definition of Diesel 

fuel; 

■ (b) By revising the definition of 

Emergency stationary RICE; 

■ (c) By adding the definition of Black 

start engine; 

■ (d) By adding the definition of Engine 

startup; and 

■ (e) By adding the definition of 

Residential/commercial/institutional 

emergency stationary RICE, in 

alphabetical order, to read as follows: 

§ 63.6675 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Black start engine means an engine 

whose only purpose is to start up a 

combustion turbine. 

* * * * * 

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. Diesel 

fuel also includes any non-distillate fuel 

with comparable physical and chemical 

properties (e.g. biodiesel) that is suitable 

for use in compression ignition engines. 

* * * * * 

Emergency stationary RICE means any 

stationary internal combustion engine 

whose operation is limited to emergency 

situations and required testing and 

maintenance. Examples include 

stationary ICE used to produce power 

for critical networks or equipment 

(including power supplied to portions 

of a facility) when electric power from 

the local utility (or the normal power 

source, if the facility runs on its own 

power production) is interrupted, or 

stationary ICE used to pump water in 

the case of fire or flood, etc. Stationary 

CI ICE used for peak shaving are not 

considered emergency stationary ICE. 

Stationary CI ICE used to supply power 

to an electric grid or that supply nonemergency power as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity are not 

considered to be emergency engines, 

except as permitted under § 63.6640(f). 

Emergency stationary RICE with a siterating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions that were installed prior to 

June 12, 2006, may be operated for the 

purpose of maintenance checks and 

readiness testing, provided that the tests 

are recommended by the manufacturer, 

the vendor, or the insurance company 

associated with the engine. Required 

testing of such units should be 

minimized, but there is no time limit on 

the use of emergency stationary RICE in 

emergency situations and for routine 

testing and maintenance. Emergency 

stationary RICE with a site-rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions that 

were installed prior to June 12, 2006, 

may also operate an additional 50 hours 

per year in non-emergency situations. 

All other emergency stationary RICE 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in § 63.6640(f). 

Engine startup means the time from 

initial start until applied load and 

engine and associated equipment 

reaches steady state or normal 

operation. For stationary engine with 

catalytic controls, engine startup means 

the time from initial start until applied 

load and engine and associated 

equipment, including the catalyst, 

reaches steady state or normal 

operation. 

* * * * * 

Residential/commercial/institutional 

emergency stationary RICE means an 

emergency stationary RICE used in 

residential establishments such as 

homes or residences, commercial 

establishments such as office buildings, 

hotels, or stores, or institutional 

establishments such as medical centers, 

research centers, and institutions of 

higher education. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Emission Limitations for Existing, New, 

and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 

4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located 

at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

emission limitations for existing, new 

and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE 

at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 

percent: 

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

during periods of startup . . . During periods of startup you must . . . 

1. 4SRB stationary RICE ..... a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or 

more. If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, 

you may reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more until June 15, 2007 or.

Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and minimize 

the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and safe loading of the engine, not 

to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the non-startup emission limitations apply.1

b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2.

1 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9680 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 21. Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Emission Limitations for New and 

Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression 

Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP and 

New and Reconstructed 4SLB 

Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a 

Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

emission limitations for new and 

reconstructed lean burn and new and 

reconstructed compression ignition 

stationary RICE at 100 percent load plus 

or minus 10 percent: 

For each . . . You must meet the following emission limitation, except during periods of startup . . . During periods of startup you must . . . 

1. 2SLB stationary RICE .................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or 

more; or 

b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 12 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. If you commenced 

construction or reconstruction between December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you 

may limit concentration of formaldehyde to 

17 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2 until 

June 15, 2007.

Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and 

safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 

30 minutes, after which time the non-startup 

emission limitations apply.1

2. 4SLB stationary RICE .................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or 

more; or 

b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2.

3. CI stationary RICE ......................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or 

more; or 

b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or 

less at 15 percent O2.

1Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

■ 22. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Operating Limitations for New and 

Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression 

Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP 

Emissions, Existing Non-Emergency 

Compression Ignition Stationary RICE 

>500 HP, and New and Reconstructed 

4SLB Burn Stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP 

Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6601, 

63.6630, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following operating limitations 

for new and reconstructed lean burn 

and existing, new and reconstructed 

compression ignition stationary RICE: 

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

1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation 

catalyst; or 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE 

complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and using an oxidation catalyst.

a. Maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst 

does not change by more than 2 inches of water at 100 percent load 

plus or minus 10 percent 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 450 °F and 

less than or equal to 1350 °F.1

2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and not using an oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary 

RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and not using an oxidation catalyst.

Comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator. 

1Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(g) for a different temperature range. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9681 

■ 23. Add Tables 2c and 2d to Subpart 

ZZZZ of Part 63 to read as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Requirements for Existing Compression 

Ignition Stationary Rice Located at 

Major Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

requirements for existing compression 

ignition stationary RICE: 

For each . . . You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . . During periods of startup you must . . . 

1. Emergency CI and black start CI.1 ................ a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first; 2

b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

of operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary.3

Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and 

safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 

30 minutes, after which time the non-startup 

emission limitations apply.3

2. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI < 100 

HP.

a. Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first; 2

b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

of operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary.3

3. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI RICE 

100≤HP≤300 HP.

Limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 230 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

4. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI 

300<HP≤500.

a. Limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or 

more. 

5. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI>500 HP a. Limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or 

more. 

1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the work practice 

requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the required schedule would otherwise 

pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law, the work practice can be delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable 

risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. The work practice should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended 

or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform the work practice on the 

schedule required and the Federal, State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 2Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as described in § 63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil change requirement 

in Table 2c of this subpart. 3Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Requirements for Existing Compression 

Ignition Stationary RICE Located at 

Area Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

emission and operating limitations for 

existing compression ignition stationary 

RICE: 

For each . . . You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . . During periods of startup you must . . . 

1. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI ≤ 300 

HP.

a. Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first;1

b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first; 

Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and 

safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 

30 minutes, after which time the non-startup 

emission limitations apply. 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

of operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9682 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

For each . . . You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . . During periods of startup you must . . . 

2. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI 

300<HP≤500.

a. Limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or 

more.

3. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI > 500 

HP.

a. Limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or 

more.

4. Emergency CI and black start CI.2 ................ a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first;1

b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, whichever comes 

first; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

of operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary.

1Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as described in § 63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil change requirement 

in Table 2d of this subpart. 2 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the management 

practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2d of this subpart, or if performing the management practice on the required schedule 

would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law, the management practice can be delayed until the emergency is 

over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. The management practice should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to 

perform the management practice on the schedule required and the Federal, State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 

■ 24. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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 with a 

brake horsepower >500 located at major 

sources and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower >500 

located at major sources.

Reduce CO emissions and not using a CEMS Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1

2. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake horsepower ≥5,000 located at major sources.Reduce formaldehyde emissions ..................... Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1

3. Stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 

>500 located at major sources.

Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust.

Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1

4. Existing non-emergency, non-black start CI 

stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 

>500 that are not limited use stationary RICE.

Limit or reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions.Conduct subsequent performance tests every 

8,760 hrs or 3 years, whichever comes first. 

5. Existing non-emergency, non-black start CI 

stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 

>500 that are limited use stationary RICE.

.......................................................................... Conduct subsequent performance tests every 

8,760 hrs or 5 years, whichever comes first. 

1After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or formaldehyde 

emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests. 

■ 25. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

As stated in §§ 63.6610, 63.6611, 

63.6612, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you 

must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests for 

stationary RICE for existing sources: 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. 2SLB, 4SLB, and 

CI stationary RICE.

a. Reduce CO emissions.i. Measure the O2 at 

the inlet and outlet 

of the control device; and 

(1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer. (a) Using ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) a (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Measurements to determine O2 must be 

made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO concentration. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9683 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

ii. Measure the CO at 

the inlet and the 

outlet of the control 

device.

(1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer. (a) Using ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) a,b (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or Method 

10 of 40 CFR appendix A. The 

CO concentration must be at 

15 percent O2, dry basis. 

2. 4SRB stationary 

RICE.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions.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 control device. 

ii. Measure O2 at the 

inlet and outlet of 

the control device; 

and 

(1) Method 3 or 3A or 3B of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, or 

ASTM Method D6522–00 

(2005).

(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 

control device; and 

(1) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or Test Method 

320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D 6348–03.

(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 

control device. 

(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A; or ASTM 

D6348–03 c, provided in ASTM 

D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the percent R must be greater than or 

equal to 70 and less than or 

equal to 130..

(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 

or CO 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 3 or 3A or 3B of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, or 

ASTM Method D6522–00 

(2005).

(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, or Test Method 

320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D 6348–03.

(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; or 

(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A; or ASTM 

D6348–03 c, provided in ASTM 

D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the percent R must be greater than or 

equal to 70 and less than or 

equal to 130.

(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. 

v. Measure CO at the 

exhaust of the stationary RICE. 

(1) Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, ASTM Method 

D6522–00 (2005) a, Method 

320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348–03.

(a) CO concentration must be at 

15 percent O2, dry basis. Results of this test consist of the 

average of the three 1-hour 

longer runs. 

aYou may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM–D6522–00 (2005). You may obtain a copy of ASTM–D6522–00 (2005) from at 

least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM–D6522–00 (2005) may be used to test both CI and SI 

stationary RICE. bYou may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348–03. 

cYou may obtain a copy of ASTM–D6348–03 from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9684 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 25. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. 

Initial Compliance With Emission 

Limitations and Operating Limitations 

As stated in §§ 63.6612, 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 >500 HP 

located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and using oxidation 

catalyst, and using a CPMS.

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 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 >500 HP 

located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and not using 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 operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 

3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions, and using a CEMS 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. 

4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and 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 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. 

5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not 

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 operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 

6. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

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 catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9685 

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

. . . 

iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst inlet temperature during 

the initial performance test. 

7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust and not using 

oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

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 operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 

8. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at a major source, existing 

non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at an area source.

a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions ..... i. The average reduction of emissions of CO 

or formaldehyde, as applicable determined 

from the initial performance test is equal to 

or greater than the required CO or formaldehyde, as applicable, percent reduction. 

9. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at a major source, existing 

non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at an area source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.

i. The average formaldehyde or CO concentration, as applicable, corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry basis, from the three test 

runs is less than or equal to the formaldehyde or CO emission limitation, as applicable. 

■ 26. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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 >500 HP 

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.i. Conducting semiannual performance tests 

for CO to demonstrate that the required CO 

percent reduction is achieved a; and 

ii. Collecting the 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 catalyst inlet temperature; and 

v. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and not using an 

oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.

i. Conducting semiannual performance tests 

for CO to demonstrate that the required CO 

percent reduction is achieved a; and 

ii. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) 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 operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and using a CEMS 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 catalyst achieves 

the required percent reduction of CO emissions over the 4-hour averaging period; and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and using 

NSCR.

i. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

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 the catalyst inlet temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not 

using NSCR.

i. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) 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 the operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

6. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake HP 

≥5,000 located at a major source.

Reduce formaldehyde emissions ..................... Conducting semiannual performance tests for 

formaldehyde to demonstrate that the required formaldehyde percent reduction is 

achieved.a

7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

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 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 catalyst inlet temperature; and 

v. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

8. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

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 approved operating parameter (if any) 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 operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

9. Existing stationary CI RICE not subject to 

any numerical emission limitations.

a. Work or Management practices .................. i. Operating and maintaining the stationary 

RICE according to the manufacturer’s emission-related operation and maintenance instructions; or 

ii. Develop and follow your own maintenance 

plan which must provide to the extent practicable for the maintenance and operation 

of the engine in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9687 

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

by . . . 

10. Existing stationary RICE >500 HP that are 

not limited use stationary RICE, except 4SRB 

>500 HP located at major sources.

a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions; or 

b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.

i. Conducting performance tests every 8,760 

hours or 3 years, whichever comes first, for 

CO or formaldehyde, as appropriate, to 

demonstrate that the required CO or formaldehyde, as appropriate, percent reduction 

is achieved or that your emissions remain 

at or below the CO or formaldehyde concentration limit. 

11. Existing limited use stationary RICE >500 

HP that are limited use CI stationary RICE.

a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions; or 

b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.

i. Conducting performance tests every 8,760 

hours or 5 years, whichever comes first, for 

CO or formaldehyde, as appropriate, to 

demonstrate that the required CO or formaldehyde, as appropriate, percent reduction 

is achieved or that your emissions remain 

at or below the CO or formaldehyde concentration limit. 

aAfter you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or formaldehyde 

emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests. 

■ 27. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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-ofcontrol during the reporting period; or 

i. Semiannually according to the requirements 

in § 63.6650(b)(1)–(5) for engines that are 

not limited use stationary CI RICE subject 

to numerical emission limitations; and 

ii. Annually according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6650(b)(6)–(9) for engines that are limited use stationary CI RICE subject to numerical emission limitations. 

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 malfunction during the reporting period, the information in 

§ 63.6650(c)(4). 

i. Semiannually according to the requirements 

in § 63.6650(b). 

2. Report ..................................................... a. The fuel flow rate of each fuel and the 

heating values that were used in your calculations, and you must demonstrate that 

the percentage of heat input provided by 

landfill gas or digester gas, is equivalent to 

10 percent or more of the gross heat input 

on an annual basis; and 

i. Annually, according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6650. 

b. The operating limits provided in your Federally enforceable permit, and any deviations from these limits; and i. See item 2.a.i. 

c. Any problems or errors suspected with the 

meters.

i. See item 2.a.i. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 28. Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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 

§ 63.1 ............................................. General applicability of the General Provisions.Yes. 

§ 63.2 ............................................. Definitions ................................................... Yes .................... Additional terms defined in § 63.6675. 

§ 63.3 ............................................. Units and abbreviations .............................. Yes. 

§ 63.4 ............................................. Prohibited activities and circumvention ...... Yes. 

§ 63.5 ............................................. Construction and reconstruction ................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(a) ......................................... Applicability ................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) .............................. Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources.Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) .................................... Notification .................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) .................................... [Reserved] 

§ 63.6(b)(7) .................................... Compliance dates for new and reconstructed area sources that become 

major sources.

Yes. 

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

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .............................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.6(c)(5) ..................................... Compliance dates for existing area 

sources that become major sources.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(d) ......................................... [Reserved] 

§ 63.6(e) ......................................... Operation and maintenance ....................... No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................................... Applicability of standards ............................ No. 

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

§ 63.6(f)(3) ..................................... Finding of compliance ................................ Yes. 

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .............................. Use of alternate standard ........................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(h) ......................................... Opacity and visible emission standards ..... No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or 

visible emission standards. 

§ 63.6(i) .......................................... Compliance extension procedures and criteria.Yes. 

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

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Performance test dates .............................. Yes .................... Subpart ZZZZ contains performance test 

dates at §§ 63.6610, 63.6611, and 

63.6612. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .................................... CAA section 114 authority .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) .................................... Notification of performance test ................. Yes .................... Except that § 63.7(b)(1) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) .................................... Notification of rescheduling ........................ Yes .................... Except that § 63.7(b)(2) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.7(c) ......................................... Quality assurance/test plan ........................ Yes .................... Except that § 63.7(c) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.7(d) ......................................... Testing facilities .......................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................................... Conditions for conducting performance 

tests.

No. ..................... Subpart ZZZZ specifies conditions for conducting performance tests at § 63.6620. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) .................................... Conduct of performance tests and reduction of data.Yes .................... Subpart ZZZZ specifies test methods at 

§ 63.6620. 

§ 63.7(e)(3) .................................... Test run duration ........................................ Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(4) .................................... Administrator may require other testing 

under section 114 of the CAA.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) .......................................... Alternative test method provisions ............. Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) ......................................... Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting.Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) ......................................... Waiver of tests ............................................ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) .................................... Applicability of monitoring requirements .... Yes .................... Subpart ZZZZ contains specific requirements for monitoring at § 63.6625. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) .................................... Performance specifications ........................ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) .................................... [Reserved] 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................................... Monitoring for control devices .................... No. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) .................................... Monitoring ................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) .............................. Multiple effluents and multiple monitoring 

systems.

Yes. 

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

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

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. SSM not in Startup Shutdown Malfunction 

Plan.

Yes. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9689 

General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation 

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

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................. Monitoring system installation .................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... Continuous monitoring system (CMS) requirements.Yes .................... Except that subpart ZZZZ does not require 

Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

(COMS). 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... COMS minimum procedures ...................... No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) .............................. CMS requirements ...................................... Yes .................... Except that subpart ZZZZ does not require 

COMS. 

§ 63.8(d) ......................................... CMS quality control .................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(e) ......................................... CMS performance evaluation ..................... Yes .................... Except for § 63.8(e)(5)(ii), which applies to 

COMS. 

Except that § 63.8(e) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... Alternative monitoring method .................... Yes .................... Except that § 63.8(f)(4) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ..................................... Alternative to relative accuracy test ........... Yes .................... Except that § 63.8(f)(6) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.9(a) ......................................... Applicability and State delegation of notification requirements.Yes. 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) .............................. Initial notifications ....................................... Yes .................... Except that § 63.9(b)(3) is reserved. 

Except that § 63.9(b) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(c) ......................................... Request for compliance extension ............. Yes .................... Except that § 63.9(c) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(d) ......................................... Notification of special compliance requirements for new sources.Yes .................... Except that § 63.9(d) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(e) ......................................... Notification of performance test ................. Yes .................... Except that § 63.9(e) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of visible emission (VE)/opacity 

test.

No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or 

VE standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(1) .................................... Notification of performance evaluation ....... Yes .................... Except that § 63.9(g) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(g)(2) .................................... Notification of use of COMS data .............. No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or 

VE standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(3) .................................... Notification that criterion for alternative to 

RATA is exceeded.

Yes .................... If alternative is in use. 

Except that § 63.9(g) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.9(h)(4) is reserved. 

Except that § 63.9(h) only applies as specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(i) .......................................... Adjustment of submittal deadlines ............. Yes. 

§ 63.9(j) .......................................... Change in previous information ................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(a) ....................................... Administrative provisions for recordkeeping/reporting.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................................. Record retention ......................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(v) ......................... Records related to SSM ............................. No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi) ...................... Records ...................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............................. Record when under waiver ........................ Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............................ Records when using alternative to RATA .. Yes .................... For CO standard if using RATA alternative. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............................ Records of supporting documentation ....... Yes. 

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

§ 63.10(c) ....................................... Additional records for sources using 

CEMS.

Yes .................... Except that § 63.10(c)(2)–(4) and (9) are 

reserved. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) .................................. General reporting requirements ................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) .................................. Report of performance test results ............. Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) .................................. Reporting opacity or VE observations ........ No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or 

VE standards. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) .................................. Progress reports ......................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) .................................. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports No. 

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

§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) .............................. COMS-related report .................................. No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) .................................. Excess emission and parameter 

exceedances reports.

Yes. ................... Except that § 63.10(e)(3)(i) (C) is reserved. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation 

§ 63.10(e)(4) .................................. Reporting COMS data ................................ No ...................... Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) ........................................ Waiver for recordkeeping/reporting ............ Yes. 

§ 63.11 ........................................... Flares .......................................................... No. 

§ 63.12 ........................................... State authority and delegations .................. Yes. 

§ 63.13 ........................................... Addresses ................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by reference ......................... Yes. 

§ 63.15 ........................................... Availability of information ............................ Yes. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3508 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2