33812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–9679–3] 

RIN 2060–AQ58 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines; New Source Performance 

Standards for Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act. The proposed 

amendments include alternative testing 

options for certain large spark ignition 

(generally natural gas-fueled) stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a 

subset of existing spark ignition 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines in sparsely 

populated areas and alternative 

monitoring and compliance options for 

the same engines in populated areas. 

The EPA is also proposing to include a 

limited temporary allowance for 

existing stationary emergency area 

source engines to be used for peak 

shaving and non-emergency demand 

response. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to increase the hours that 

stationary emergency engines may be 

used for emergency demand response. 

The proposed amendments also correct 

minor mistakes in the pre-existing 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before July 23, 2012, or 

30 days after date of public meeting if 

later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public meeting 

by June 14, 2012, a public meeting will 

be held on June 22, 2012. If you are 

interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

(919) 541–7966 to verify that a meeting 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0708, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person identified below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is 

held, it will be held at the EPA’s 

campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC or 

an alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. The EPA also relies on 

documents in Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0059, EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 

0029, EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0030, and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295, and 

incorporated those dockets into the 

record for this action. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket 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; email address king.melanie@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance 

Demonstration Option 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak 

Shaving 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE 

Greater than 500 HP Located at Area 

Sources 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San 

Joaquin Valley 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and 

Revisions 

G. Compliance Date 

III. 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 non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and 

Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33813 

1A Class 1 location is defined as an offshore area 

or any class location unit that has 10 or fewer 

buildings intended for human occupancy. 

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 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to 

propose amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposal was 

developed to address certain issues that 

have been raised by different 

stakeholders through lawsuits, several 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 

RICE NESHAP amendments and other 

communications. This proposal also 

provides clarifications and corrects 

minor mistakes in the current RICE 

NESHAP and revises the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

stationary engines, 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ, for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP. 

This action is conducted under the 

authority of section 112 of the CAA, 

‘‘Hazardous Air Pollutants,’’ (HAP) 

which requires the EPA to establish 

NESHAP for the control of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from both new and 

existing sources in regulated source 

categories. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE 

NESHAP amendments, the EPA 

received several petitions for 

reconsideration, legal challenges, and 

other communications raising issues of 

practical implementability, and certain 

factual information that had not been 

brought to the EPA’s attention during 

the rulemaking. The EPA has 

considered this information and 

believes that amendments to the rule to 

address certain of these issues are 

appropriate. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ, NESHAP for Stationary 

RICE. The current regulation applies to 

owners and operators of existing and 

new stationary RICE at major and area 

sources of HAP emissions. The 

applicability of the rule remains the 

same and is not changed by this 

proposal. The EPA is also proposing to 

amend the NSPS for stationary engines 

to conform with certain of the 

amendments proposed for the NESHAP. 

The EPA proposes to add an 

alternative compliance demonstration 

option for stationary 4-stroke rich burn 

(4SRB) spark ignition (SI) engines 

subject to a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines would be 

permitted to demonstrate compliance 

with the 76 percent formaldehyde 

reduction emission standard by testing 

total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions and 

showing that the engine is achieving at 

least a 30 percent reduction of THC 

emissions. The alternative compliance 

option would provide a less expensive 

and less complex, but equally effective, 

method for demonstrating compliance 

than testing for formaldehyde. 

Certain stationary RICE are 

maintained in order to be able to 

respond to emergency power needs. The 

EPA proposes to allow owners and 

operators of such stationary emergency 

RICE to operate their engines as part of 

an emergency demand response 

program within the 100 hours per year 

that is already permitted for 

maintenance and testing of the engines. 

The 100 hours per year allowance 

would ensure that a sufficient number 

of hours are permitted for engines to 

meet independent system operator (ISO) 

and regional transmission organization 

(RTO) tariffs and other requirements for 

participating in various emergency 

demand response programs and would 

assist in stabilizing the grid, preventing 

electrical blackouts and supporting local 

electric system reliability. A temporary 

limited allowance that will expire on 

April 16, 2017 (the date by which full 

compliance with the NESHAP From 

Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304) is 

expected), is being proposed for 

stationary emergency engines located at 

area sources of HAP emissions to be 

used for up to 50 hours per year for any 

non-emergency purpose, including peak 

shaving. The 50 hours is part of the 100 

hours per year total allowance for all 

types of emergency engine operation 

(except during emergencies where no 

other power is available, which is not 

restricted by the rule). The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give 

sources time to address reliability issues 

and develop solutions to reliability 

issues while facilities are coming into 

compliance with the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units, which were 

promulgated on February 16, 2012 (77 

FR 9304). 

The EPA proposes management 

practices for owners and operators of 

existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines 

above 500 horsepower (HP) that are area 

sources of HAP emissions and where 

the engines are remote from human 

activity. A remote area is defined as 

either a Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Class 1 pipeline location,1 or, if 

the facility is not on a pipeline, if within 

a 0.25-mile radius of the facility there 

are 5 or less buildings intended for 

human occupancy. The 0.25-mile radius 

was chosen as the area would be similar 

to the area used for the DOT pipeline 

Class location. The EPA proposes that 

these sources be subject to management 

practices rather than numeric emission 

limits and associated testing and 

monitoring. This would address 

reasonable concerns with accessibility, 

infrastructure, and staffing that stem 

from the remoteness of the engines and 

higher costs that would be associated 

with compliance with the existing 

requirements. The EPA proposes that 

existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines 

above 500 HP at area sources that are in 

populated areas (defined as not in DOT 

pipeline Class 1 areas, or if not on a 

pipeline, if within a 0.25-mile radius of 

the facility there are more than 5 

buildings intended for human 

occupancy) be subject to an equipment 

standard that requires the installation of 

HAP-reducing aftertreatment. The EPA 

has the discretion to set an equipment 

standard as GACT for engines located at 

area sources of HAP. Sources would be 

required to test their engines to 

demonstrate compliance initially, 

perform catalyst activity check-ups, and 

either monitor the catalyst inlet 

temperature continuously or employ 

high temperature shutdown devices to 

protect the catalyst. 

To address how certain existing 

compression ignition (CI) engines are 

currently regulated, the EPA proposes to 

specify that any existing certified CI 

engine above 300 HP at an area source 

of HAP emissions that was certified to 

meet the Tier 3 engine standards and 

was installed before June 12, 2006, is in 

compliance with the NESHAP. This 

provision would create regulatory 

consistency between the same engines 

installed before and after June 12, 2006. 

Engines at area sources of HAP for 

which construction commenced before 

June 12, 2006, are considered existing 

engines under the NESHAP. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA is proposing amendments to 

the requirements for existing stationary 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject 

to state and locally enforceable 

requirements requiring replacement of 

the engine by June 1, 2018. This is 

meant to deal with a specific concern 

regarding the interaction of the NESHAP 

with certain rules for agricultural 

engines in the San Joaquin Valley in 

California. The EPA is proposing to 

allow these engines to meet 

management practices under the RICE 

NESHAP from the May 3, 2013 

compliance date until January 1, 2015, 

or 12 years after installation date, but 

not later than June 1, 2018. This 

provision would deal with the issue of 

owners and operators having to install 

controls on their engines in order to 

meet the RICE NESHAP, and then 

having to replace their engines shortly 

thereafter due to state and local rules 

specifying the replacement of engines. 

Owners and operators will have 

additional time to replace their engines 

without having to install controls, but 

will be required to use management 

practices during that period. 

The last major change the EPA 

proposes to make is to broaden the 

definition of remote area sources of 

Alaska in the RICE NESHAP. Currently, 

remote areas are those that are not on 

the Federal Aid Highway System 

(FAHS). This change would permit 

existing stationary CI engines at other 

remote area sources in Alaska to meet 

management practices as opposed to 

emission standards likely necessitating 

aftertreatment. These remote areas have 

the same challenges as areas not on the 

FAHS, and complying with the current 

rule would similarly be prohibitively 

costly and potentially infeasible. In 

addition to area sources located in areas 

of Alaska that are not accessible by the 

FAHS being defined as remote and 

subject to management practices, the 

EPA also proposes that any stationary 

RICE in Alaska meeting all of the 

following conditions be subject to 

management practices: 

(1) The only connection to the FAHS 

is through the Alaska Marine Highway 

System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE 

operation is within an isolated grid in 

Alaska that is not connected to the 

statewide electrical grid referred to as 

the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

(2) At least 10 percent of the power 

generated by the stationary RICE on an 

annual basis is used for residential 

purposes, and 

(3) The generating capacity of the area 

source is less than 12 megawatts, or the 

stationary RICE is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and 

is used less than 500 hrs per year on a 

10-year rolling average. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

These proposed amendments would 

reduce the capital and annual costs of 

the original 2010 amendments by $287 

million and $139 million, respectively. 

The EPA estimates that with the 

proposed amendments, the capital cost 

of the rule is $840 million and the 

annual cost is $490 million ($2010). 

These proposed amendments would 

also result in decreases to the emissions 

reductions estimated in 2013 from the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments. The estimated reductions 

in 2013 from the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

rulemaking with these proposed 

amendments are 2,800 tons per year 

(tpy) of HAP, 36,000 tpy of carbon 

monoxide (CO), 2,800 tpy of particulate 

matter (PM), 9,600 tpy of nitrogen oxide 

(NOX), and 36,000 tpy of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). The 

reductions that were estimated for the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments were 7,000 tpy of HAP, 

124,000 tpy of CO, 2,800 tpy of PM, 

96,000 tpy of NOX, and 58,000 tpy of 

VOC. 

The EPA estimates the monetized cobenefits in 2013 of the original 2010 

RICE NESHAP amendments with these 

proposed amendments incorporated to 

be $830 million to $2,100 million (2010 

dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$740 million to $1,800 million (2010 

dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

benefits that were estimated for the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments were $1,500 million to 

$3,600 million (2010 dollars) at a 3- 

percent discount rate and $1,300 

million to $3,200 million (2010 dollars) 

at a 7-percent discount rate. 

B. 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 the proposed amendments.

2211 

622110 

Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 

Medical and surgical hospitals. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 

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 proposed 

rule. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the 

following address: Ms. Melanie King, 

c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(Room C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33815 

2Memorandum from Melanie King, EPA Energy 

Strategies Group to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0708. 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. August 10, 

2010. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0557. 

3Letter from Dresser-Waukesha to Melanie King. 

Follow-up to November 18, 2010 Teleconference. 

December 6, 2010. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708– 

0662. 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

(b) Follow directions. The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

(d) Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

(e) If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

(f) Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

(g) Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

(h) Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Docket. The docket number for this 

proposed rule is Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0708. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed rule 

will be posted on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

rule on the TTN’s policy and guidance 

page for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

This action proposes amendments to 

the NESHAP for RICE in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. This action also proposes 

amendments to the NSPS for stationary 

engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII 

and JJJJ. The NESHAP for stationary 

RICE to regulate emissions of HAP was 

developed in several stages. The EPA 

initially addressed stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources of HAP emissions in 2004 (69 

FR 33473). The EPA addressed new 

stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources and new 

stationary RICE located at area sources 

in 2008 (73 FR 3568). Most recently, 

requirements for existing stationary 

RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and existing 

stationary RICE located at area sources 

were finalized in 2010 (75 FR 9648 and 

75 FR 51570). 

The EPA is proposing to address a 

number of issues that have been raised 

by different stakeholders through 

lawsuits, several petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2010 RICE 

NESHAP amendments, and other 

communications. The EPA is also 

proposing to revise 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP and to make 

minor corrections and clarifications. 

The following sections present the 

issues that the EPA is addressing in this 

action, background information as to 

why these issues are causing concern 

among affected stakeholders, and how 

the EPA proposes to resolve the issues. 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance 

Demonstration Option 

1. Background 

Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at 

major sources and existing SI 4SRB nonemergency engines greater than 500 HP 

located at area sources have the option 

of meeting either a formaldehyde 

percent reduction or a formaldehyde 

concentration standard. Formaldehyde 

was established in the original 2004 

RICE NESHAP as an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB 

engines based on industry test data 

available at that time. Based on testing 

of stationary lean burn engines 

conducted at Colorado State University 

(CSU), the EPA was able to establish CO 

as a surrogate for HAP for lean burn 

engines. Rich burn engines were not 

tested at CSU and the data the EPA had 

available at the time that were used to 

set the standards for rich burn engines 

did not support the same relationship 

between CO and HAP reductions for 

rich burn engines. Therefore, the EPA 

was unable to establish CO as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions for rich 

burn engines and the emission standard 

for rich burn engines was specified in 

terms of formaldehyde, the hazardous 

air pollutant emitted in the largest 

quantity from stationary engines. 

The EPA has previously 

acknowledged that it is significantly 

more expensive and difficult to test for 

formaldehyde than for CO, but has been 

unable in the past to support the same 

flexibility for rich burn engines as is 

currently in the rule for lean burn 

engines with the option to meet the 

standards in terms of either 

formaldehyde or CO. For these reasons, 

and expecting that new data for rich 

burn engines may become available in 

the future for the EPA to review and 

reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the 

EPA requested comment on this issue 

when proposing NESHAP for stationary 

existing engines less than or equal to 

500 HP at major sources and all 

stationary existing engines at area 

sources in 2009 (74 FR 9698). 

Specifically, the EPA solicited comment 

on whether it would be appropriate to 

include an alternative standard in terms 

of VOC and asked that commenters 

submit data supporting the relationship 

between HAP and VOC. Comments the 

EPA received back on the proposed rule 

asked that the formaldehyde standards 

for rich burn engines be replaced with 

emission standards for THC. The EPA 

determined at the time that it was not 

appropriate to adopt an alternative 

standard in terms of THC (or VOC) for 

rich burn engines and discussed the 

reasons why in the 2010 responses to 

comments.2 Compliance with the 

formaldehyde standard in the rule is, 

therefore, currently demonstrated by 

initial and continuous performance 

testing for formaldehyde. 

On October 19, 2010, engine 

manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted a petition for reconsideration 

of the formaldehyde requirements. The 

EPA granted the petition for 

reconsideration on January 5, 2011. (In 

addition, on November 3, 2010, the 

Engine Manufacturers Association 

submitted a petition for judicial review 

of these requirements.) In the petition 

for reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha 

argued that formaldehyde is difficult 

and costly to measure. The petition 

requested that the HAP surrogate for 

4SRB engines should be THC rather 

than formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted data from testing it conducted 

illustrating that THC reduction across 

the catalyst is an appropriate surrogate 

for HAP reduction across the catalyst.3

According to the petitioner, testing for 

THC is easier and less costly and would 

substantially reduce the burden of the 

rule for owners and operators of these 

engines. Testing for formaldehyde 

emissions could cost more than double 

that of testing for THC emissions and on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

a nationwide basis the EPA estimates 

that replacing formaldehyde testing 

with THC testing would result in 

substantial compliance cost savings 

annually while achieving the same 

reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data 

submitted by Dresser-Waukesha. The 

data provided indicate that a strong 

relationship exists between percentage 

reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the 

surrogate for HAP emissions in the 

NESHAP) on rich burn engines using 

non-selective catalytic reduction 

(NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA 

indicate that if the NSCR is reducing 

THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB 

engines, formaldehyde emissions are 

guaranteed to be reduced by at least 76 

percent, which is the percentage 

reduction required for the relevant 

engines. Indeed, the percentage 

reduction of formaldehyde is invariably 

well above the 76 percent level, and is 

usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the 

EPA agrees with the petitioner that for 

SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and 

meeting the NESHAP by showing a 

percentage reduction of HAP, it would 

be appropriate to allow sources to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

NESHAP by showing a THC reduction 

of at least 30 percent. Including an 

optional THC compliance 

demonstration option would reduce the 

cost of compliance significantly while 

continuing to achieve the same level of 

HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the 

same. Consequently, the EPA is 

proposing amendments to allow owners 

and operators of certain stationary 4SRB 

engines (i.e., the ones currently subject 

to a formaldehyde percent reduction 

requirement) to show compliance with 

an optional THC compliance 

demonstration option. The specific 

amendments the EPA is proposing are 

presented below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

The EPA is proposing to add an 

alternative method of demonstrating 

compliance with the NESHAP for 

stationary 4SRB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for 

existing stationary 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP that are 

located at area sources of HAP 

emissions that choose to meet the 

formaldehyde percent reduction 

requirement of 76 percent or more. 

Based on the arguments and evidence 

presented in the petition discussed 

above, the EPA is proposing to add a 

compliance demonstration option for 

stationary 4SRB engines meeting a 76 

percent or more formaldehyde 

reduction. The compliance 

demonstration option would be an 

alternative to the existing method of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction 

standard, which is to test engines for 

formaldehyde. The alternative for 

owners and operators of 4SRB engines 

meeting a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction would be to 

test their engines for THC showing that 

the engine is achieving at least a 30 

percent reduction of THC emissions. 

Under the proposed amendments, 

existing and new stationary 4SRB 

engines greater than 500 HP and located 

at major sources would still be required 

to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more or limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 350 parts per 

billion by volume, dry basis or less at 

15 percent oxygen (O2). However, 

owners and operators choosing to meet 

the formaldehyde concentration limit 

would not have the THC demonstration 

compliance option, because EPA could 

not verify a clear relationship between 

concentrations of THC and 

concentrations of formaldehyde in 

exhaust from these SI 4SRB engines. For 

the reasons discussed in section II.C.1 of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing that 

existing stationary 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at 

area sources located in populated areas 

be subject to an equipment standard and 

required to install a catalyst. These 

engines would be subject to testing to 

demonstrate initially and on an ongoing 

basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 

75 percent or more, or alternatively that 

THC emissions are being reduced by 30 

percent or more. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary 4SRB engines less than or 

equal to 500 HP who are required to 

limit the concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust to 10.3 

parts per million by volume, dry basis 

(ppmvd) or less at 15 percent O2 do not 

have the option to demonstrate 

compliance using THC and must 

continue to demonstrate compliance by 

testing for formaldehyde following the 

methods and procedures specified in 

the rule. 

Owners and operators opting to use 

the THC compliance demonstration 

method must demonstrate compliance 

by showing that the average reduction of 

THC is equal to or greater than 30 

percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB 

stationary RICE complying with the 

requirement to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions and demonstrating 

compliance by using the THC 

compliance demonstration option must 

conduct performance testing using 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A—Determination of Total 

Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a 

Flame Ionization Analyzer. 

Measurements of THC at the inlet and 

the outlet of the NSCR must be on a dry 

basis and corrected to 15 percent O2 or 

equivalent carbon dioxide content. To 

correct to 15 percent O2, dry basis, 

owners and operators must measure 

oxygen using Method 3, 3A or 3B of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM 

Method D6522–00 (2005) and measure 

moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM 

D6348–03. Because owners and 

operators are complying with a percent 

reduction requirement, the method used 

must be suitable for the entire range of 

emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 

25A is capable of measuring emissions 

down to 5 ppmv and is, therefore, an 

appropriate method for measuring THC 

emissions for compliance demonstration 

purposes. The EPA is allowing sources 

the option to meet a minimum THC 

percent reduction of 30 percent by using 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A to demonstrate compliance 

with the formaldehyde percent 

reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ. 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak 

Shaving 

1. Background 

This action also proposes to amend 

provisions in the RICE NESHAP that 

currently allow owners and operators to 

operate stationary emergency engines 

for up to 15 hours per year as part of a 

demand response program if the RTO or 

equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator have 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 final 

rule did not allow emergency engines to 

be used for purposes of peak shaving or 

other non-emergency purposes as part of 

a financial arrangement. These 

provisions were included in the RICE 

NESHAP when requirements for 

existing stationary CI engines were 

finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 

9648). Following the completion of that 

portion of the rule, the EPA received 

three main petitions for reconsideration. 

One petition was from CPower, Inc., 

EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC. (EnerNOC et 

al.)(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0404). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33817 

Another petition was received from the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control 

(DE DNREC) (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708–0400). The third petition was from 

the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association (NRECA) (OAR–2008– 

0708–0580). In addition to these main 

petitions the EPA received a substantial 

number of letters from others in the 

electric generation industry. 

The petition from EnerNOC, et al., 

asked that EPA increase the period of 

time permitted for emergency demand 

response operation in the rule to 60 

hours per year, or the minimum number 

of hours required by the emergency 

demand response program. By contrast, 

the DE DNREC petition asked EPA to 

reconsider the emergency demand 

response provision because of the 

adverse effects that it believes would 

result from increased emissions from 

these engines. The petition from NRECA 

requested that the EPA eliminate the 

restriction on the use of stationary 

emergency engines for demand response 

purposes. The EPA granted the petitions 

from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and 

NRECA, and issued a notice on 

December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75937), 

requesting comments on whether to 

amend the 15 hours per year limitation 

on the operation of stationary 

emergency RICE participating in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 

comments from a number of different 

entities including various state agencies, 

utilities, electric cooperatives and 

industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per 

year is not sufficient to meet current 

emergency demand response 

requirements for participation. For 

example, several emergency demand 

response programs have ISO tariff 

requirements greater than 15 hours per 

year, including the Electric Reliability 

Council of Texas emergency demand 

response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the 

Pennsylvania Jersey Maryland (‘‘PJM’’) 

Interconnection, known as the 

Emergency Load Response Program, 

which has a tariff requirement of 60 

hours per year; and the ISO New 

England (‘‘ISO–NE’’), which forecasts 

that backup resources would be 

expected for 55 hours over a 12-month 

period. Tariff requirements are 

developed to specify the mandatory 

time load resources (engines) must be 

willing and able to operate if the units 

are enrolled in the program. Conversely, 

some commenters urged the EPA to 

allow stationary emergency engines to 

only operate during true emergencies or 

when voltage or frequency varies 

beyond specified parameters. 

Based on the EPA’s review of the 

petitions and comments that the EPA 

has received, the EPA has found it 

appropriate to propose to amend the 

current rule to increase the allowance 

for stationary emergency engine 

participation in emergency demand 

response programs to up to 100 hours 

per year, which would be included as 

part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 

hours for owners of emergency engines 

to test and maintain their emergency 

engines. The EPA believes that the 

emergency demand response programs 

that exist across the country are 

important programs that protect the 

reliability and stability of the national 

electric service grid. Allowing stationary 

emergency engines to operate as part of 

emergency demand response programs 

can help prevent grid failure or 

blackouts, by allowing these engines to 

be used in circumstances of grid 

instability prior to the occurrence of 

blackouts. Preventing stationary 

emergency engines from being able to 

qualify and participate in emergency 

demand response programs without 

having to apply aftertreatment could 

force owners and operators to leave 

their engines out of these programs, 

which will impair the ability of ISOs 

and RTOs to use these relatively small, 

quick-starting and reliable sources of 

energy to protect the reliability of their 

systems. The EPA does not wish to 

potentially jeopardize electrical 

reliability or create a disincentive for 

stationary emergency engines to 

participate in these programs. The 

circumstances during which the EPA 

would allow stationary emergency 

engines to operate for emergency 

demand response purposes include 

periods during which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent 

balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) 

as defined in the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation 

Reliability Standard EOP–002–3, 

Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus 

during periods where there is a 

deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 

percent or more below standard voltage 

or frequency. During EEA Level 2 alerts 

there is insufficient energy supply and 

a true potential for electrical blackouts. 

System operators must call on all 

available resources during EEA Level 2 

alerts in order to stabilize the grid to 

prevent failure. Therefore, this situation 

is a good indicator of severe instability 

on the system. Consistent normal 

voltage provided by the utility is often 

called power quality and is an 

important factor in local electric system 

reliability. Reliability of the system 

requires electricity being provided at a 

normal expected voltage. The American 

National Standards Institute standard 

C84.1–1989 defines the maximum 

allowable voltage sag at below 5 

percent. On the local distribution level 

local voltage levels are therefore 

important and a 5 percent or more 

change in the normal voltage or 

frequency is substantial and an 

indication that additional resources are 

needed to ensure local distribution 

system reliability. This situation would 

be indicative of severe instability on the 

system. The EPA has revised the 

language identifying the emergency 

conditions that currently appears at 40 

CFR 63.6640(f) because that language is 

not as specific as the newly proposed 

language. The EPA believes that the 

newly proposed language, along with 

the preexisting language in the 

definition of emergency engine 

describing non-demand response 

emergency situations, will address all 

emergency events, including all those 

that would be recognized solely by the 

local system operators, such as local 

weather events. The EPA requests 

comments on the scope of the new 

language. 

Emergency demand response 

programs rely on agreements under 

which owners of engine agree to make 

their engines available to be called upon 

for a specific number of hours per year, 

as required by the relevant ISO or RTO 

tariff, under specified circumstances 

considered to indicate emergencies. In 

order to be enrolled in an emergency 

demand response program, participants 

must qualify their engines and must be 

able to use their emergency engines for 

the number of hours the program 

requires. Engines are not generally 

called upon for the maximum hours 

required by the tariffs. However, even 

though the engine may not be called at 

all or may run for fewer hours than the 

program requires it to be available in a 

particular year, the engine must still be 

available for those theoretical number of 

hours in order to join the program. 

Demand response contracts require 

more hours than the 15 hours per year 

that is currently in the regulations, and 

the commenters state that the 15 hours 

per year is not a sufficient amount of 

time to ensure the reliability of the 

program; some programs require up to 

60 hours per year, as discussed earlier 

in this preamble. For these reasons, the 

EPA believes it is appropriate to allow 

additional hours for emergency demand 

response operation in order for such 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4Memorandum from Stacy Angel, Synapse 

Energy Economics, Inc. to Doug Hurley, Synapse 

Energy Economics. Sample Revenue for a 1 MW 

Backup Generation Unit. June 27, 2011. 

programs to be accessible to stationary 

emergency engines. Consequently, the 

EPA is proposing amendments to the 

rule to increase the limitation on 

emergency demand response operation 

to 100 hours per year for stationary 

emergency engines. It is expected that 

owners and operators of stationary 

emergency engines that seek to qualify 

their units as demand resources would 

with the proposed increase to 100 hours 

per year be able to meet the operational 

and qualification requirements of the 

different ISOs and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency 

engines that participate in demand 

response programs may not be called 

upon at all, but must nonetheless be 

available to operate for the required 

amount stipulated by the specific 

program. The purpose of the limited 

allowance for emergency demand 

response is to respond to emergencies, 

and the EPA is persuaded by the 

information that has been submitted 

that 15 hours per year is an insufficient 

amount of time to allow for emergency 

demand response needs, given past 

experience. The EPA believes 100 hours 

per year is sufficient to cover any 

potential demand response operation as 

well as the required maintenance and 

testing that is also included within the 

100 hours of operation. 

The EPA has previously determined 

that stationary emergency engines 

typically operate well below 50 hours 

per year and more commonly about 1 to 

2 hours per month. A survey conducted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) indicated the average yearly 

operation for emergency diesel engines 

was 31 hours over a period of 3 years. 

The majority of those hours were for the 

purpose of maintenance and testing; less 

than 5 hours was for interruptible 

service contracts, and the remaining 

amount for emergency/standby 

operation (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0029– 

0011). Data from demand response 

programs in ISO–NE and PJM territories 

show that backup generation was 

dispatched for less than 30 hours during 

the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.4

However, again, emergency units 

must be available to operate more than 

that in most cases to qualify for demand 

response programs. For instance, PJM 

requires a minimum ISO tariff of 60 

hours per year of engine availability for 

program participation. Consequently, in 

order to ensure that a sufficient amount 

of operating time is available for 

maintenance and readiness testing, and 

for demand response operation, the EPA 

is proposing 100 hours of operation. A 

number of commenters requested that 

an allowance of 100 hours per year be 

allowed in order to provide adequate 

hours consistent with minimum 

required hours that customers must be 

available to operate and to address local 

distribution system emergencies. For 

instance, in Hawaii, the emergency 

demand response program operated by 

the Hawaiian Electric Company requires 

that emergency engines be able to 

operate for 100 hours per year in the 

event of an emergency in order to 

participate in the program. In order to 

provide a sufficient amount of time to 

cover annual maintenance and testing, 

which is typically more than 20 hours 

per year according to the survey 

conducted by CARB (see EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0029–0011), plus to cover 

hours necessary for qualifying for 

emergency demand response programs 

or local distribution system 

emergencies, EPA believes an allowance 

of 100 hours per year would be 

appropriate for these activities. Taking 

into account that there may be 

situations where annual maintenance 

and testing could exceed the typical 1 

to 2 hours per month and accounting for 

other emergency demand response 

programs that require more than 60 

hours per year for program participation 

(e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), 

the EPA believes that 100 hours per year 

is appropriate for emergency demand 

response plus maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule 

would mean that stationary emergency 

engines could operate for a total of 100 

hours per year for emergency demand 

response operation as part of the 100 

hours already permitted for 

maintenance and readiness testing 

while maintaining their status as 

emergency units, rather than nonemergency units, and continue to meet 

the requirements that apply to 

emergency engines. 

On the issue of peak shaving and nonemergency demand response, the EPA is 

proposing to include a temporary 

limited allowance for peak shaving and 

other types of non-emergency use as 

part of a financial arrangement for 

existing stationary emergency engines at 

area sources of HAP, if the peak shaving 

is done as part of a peak shaving (or 

load management) program with the 

local distribution system operator. The 

power generated under this allowance 

can only be used at the facility or 

towards the local system. 

The EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to include the option for 

existing stationary emergency engines at 

area sources to operate for a small 

number (50) of hours per year for any 

non-emergency reason and not be 

penalized or considered a nonemergency engine and subsequently 

required to install aftertreatment that 

could be prohibitively costly for these 

sources in the near term. The EPA is 

proposing that the 50-hour allowance 

for peak shaving for emergency engines 

at area sources be allowed for a limited 

period of time, but then removed after 

April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would 

also be limited to operation as part of a 

peak shaving (load management 

program) with the local distribution 

system operator. Owners would still 

have the pre-existing 50 hours per year 

allowance for non-emergency operation 

after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours 

could no longer be used for peak 

shaving. The temporary allowance for 

peak shaving would give sources an 

additional resource for maintaining 

reliability while facilities are coming 

into compliance with the NESHAP 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). 

While the EPA does not expect the 

NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 

to cause regional reliability problems, 

this limited allowance would allow the 

owners and operators of these engines 

more flexibility to run reliability critical 

units in order to minimize potential 

grid-related interruptions as coal- and 

oil-fired baseload power plants may be 

temporarily shut down to install 

emission controls to comply with the 

NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

Including this allowance is important 

for small electric cooperatives and other 

entities located at area sources that use 

these engines to maintain voltage and 

electric reliability. Many rural electric 

cooperatives enter agreements with 

owners of small emergency engines and 

rely on the engines to reduce demand 

on the central power supply during 

periods of high demand, which reduces 

the cost of power during periods of high 

demand for the members of the 

cooperative. Commenters promoting the 

continued use of peak shaving programs 

said that maintaining the cost of power 

as low as possible is important across 

the country, but is particularly of 

significant importance to rural electric 

cooperatives that, according to the 

commenter, service customers in the 

most economically depressed areas of 

the country, where options are the most 

limited. The commenters argued that if 

small emergency engines would no 

longer be permitted to operate for peak 

shaving purposes without having to be 

reclassified as non-emergency engines 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33819 

and subsequently subject to costly 

emissions controls, owners could no 

longer afford to participate in such 

programs. Cooperatives argued that this 

would lead to increased costs that 

would ultimately be passed along to the 

customers. Commenters also maintained 

that keeping peak shaving programs 

would not lead to additional public 

health risks or emissions because the 

operation for peak shaving is minimal. 

If peak shaving is not allowed under the 

rule, commenters said that this would 

lead to an increase in central power 

station capacity and possibly more 

transmission and distribution line 

capacity to accommodate the increase in 

demand resulting from eliminating 

small emergency engines from being 

used. This could lead to a larger impact 

on the environment and public health 

than allowing a small number of hours 

for peak shaving purposes. Certain small 

and remote facilities also rely on 

financial programs to generate 

additional income in order to maintain 

their engines and stay in operation. The 

additional funds can be essential for 

many smaller facilities and operations. 

Providing a limited allowance for peak 

shaving and non-emergency demand 

response could generate sufficient 

income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where 

these engines are in service. In order to 

further limit the operation of these 

engines to small, remote facilities, the 

EPA is proposing that the power 

generated under this allowance can only 

be used at the facility or towards the 

local system. In addition, while the EPA 

is proposing this allowance until the 

end of April 16, 2017, the EPA does not 

believe it is appropriate to continue the 

program beyond that time. Generators 

receive considerable compensation for 

their availability in peak shaving 

programs and the EPA believes that it is 

not appropriate to allow these engines 

to continue receiving compensation for 

this non-emergency use beyond 2017 

without having to reduce their 

emissions. The generators must by that 

time decide whether to restrict their use 

to emergency or limited noncompensated non-emergency use or to 

reduce the emissions from their engines. 

The EPA also encourages engine owners 

and operators, as well as larger system 

planners, to consider the use of 

alternative peak shaving options, such 

as load curtailments, lower emitting 

distributed generation, combined heat 

and power, and reduced line losses on 

the electricity grid. 

The previous estimate of emissions 

from stationary emergency engines is 

not expected to change due to this 

proposed limited allowance. To 

estimate emissions from stationary 

emergency engines, the EPA has 

previously estimated that emergency 

engines would on average operate for 50 

hours per year. There is a wide range in 

how much these engines operate (some 

well below 50 hours per year), but on 

average and to be conservative, the EPA 

believes that 50 hours per year is still 

representative and consequently the 

environmental impact the EPA has 

calculated previously remains 

appropriate. In consideration of all these 

issues, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to the rule to provide a 

limited allowance for peak shaving for 

existing stationary emergency engines at 

area sources of HAP. The specific 

amendments the EPA is proposing are 

discussed below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

a. Emergency Demand Response. 

Based on the discussion in section II.B.1 

of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

to revise the current provisions for 

stationary engines used for emergency 

demand response operation. The 

provisions the EPA is proposing to 

amend are in §§ 63.6640(f) and 63.6675 

of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Currently, § 63.6640(f)(1)(iii) allows a 

maximum of 15 hours per year to be 

spent towards demand response 

operation under certain qualifying 

conditions. Also, § 63.6640(f)(1)(ii) 

currently includes an allowance of 100 

hours per year for purposes of 

maintenance checks and readiness 

testing. The EPA is proposing that 

owners and operators of stationary 

emergency RICE be permitted to operate 

their engines as part of an emergency 

demand response program within the 

100 hours per year that is permitted for 

maintenance and testing in 

§ 63.6640(f)(1)(ii). Owners and operators 

of stationary emergency engines can 

operate for emergency demand response 

during periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent 

balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an EEA Level 2 as 

defined in the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation Reliability 

Standard EOP–002–3, Capacity and 

Energy Emergency and during periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or 

frequency of 5 percent or greater below 

standard voltage or frequency. The 

hours spent for emergency demand 

response operation are added to the 

hours spent for maintenance and testing 

purposes and counted towards the 100 

hours per year. If the total time spent for 

demand response operation and 

maintenance and testing exceeds 100 

hours per year the engine will not be 

considered an emergency engine under 

this subpart and will need to meet all 

requirements for non-emergency 

engines. The EPA is recognizing that 

these engines may be called to operate 

not only by the regional transmission 

operator or equivalent to maintain the 

reliability of the bulk power system, but 

also by the local transmission and 

distribution system operators to support 

the local power systems. 

For stationary emergency engines 

above 500 HP that were installed prior 

to June 12, 2006, there is currently no 

emergency demand response allowance 

and there is no time limit on the use of 

emergency engines for routine testing 

and maintenance in § 63.6640(f)(2)(ii). 

Those engines were not the focus of the 

2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; 

therefore, the EPA did not make any 

changes to the requirements for those 

engines as part of the 2010 amendments. 

For consistency, the EPA is now also 

proposing that owners and operators of 

stationary emergency engines installed 

prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to 

operate their engines as part of a 

demand response program as well for a 

total of 100 hours per year, including 

time spent for maintenance and testing. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

the NSPS for stationary CI and SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII 

and JJJJ, respectively, to provide the 

same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency 

demand response operation as for 

engines subject to the RICE NESHAP. 

The NSPS regulations currently do not 

include such an allowance for 

emergency demand response operation. 

For the reasons discussed in section II.B 

of this preamble as to why the EPA 

finds it appropriate to allow stationary 

emergency engines to participate in 

emergency demand response programs 

and remain being considered emergency 

units, and for consistency across engine 

regulations, the EPA is proposing to add 

an emergency demand response 

allowance under the NSPS regulations. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing language in 

§§ 60.4211(f) and 60.4219 of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart IIII, and §§ 60.4243(d) and 

60.4248 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, 

to specify that emergency engines may 

participate in demand response 

programs for up to 100 hours per year, 

including hours spent towards 

maintenance and testing of the 

emergency engines. 

b. Peak Shaving and other Nonemergency Use as Part of a Financial 

Arrangement. In addition to the changes 

the EPA is proposing related to 

emergency demand response operation, 

the EPA is also including a further 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

provision for owners and operators of 

existing stationary emergency RICE 

located at area sources for the reasons 

discussed in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble. Paragraph § 63.6640(f) 

currently allows owners and operators 

of emergency stationary RICE to operate 

their engine for 50 hours per year in 

non-emergency situations. As currently 

written, the 50 hours per year for nonemergency 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 

of certain emergency engines may 

operate the engine for a maximum of 15 

hours per year as part of an emergency 

demand response program. As 

discussed, the 15 hours per year 

allowance for emergency engines to 

participate in emergency demand 

response programs is being increased to 

100 hours per year, but will also include 

hours spent towards maintaining and 

conducting readiness testing of the 

emergency engines. However, 

additionally, the EPA is also proposing 

that stationary emergency engines 

located at area sources be permitted to 

apply the 50 hours per year that is 

currently allowed under § 63.6640(f) for 

non-emergency operation towards any 

non-emergency operation, including 

operation as part of a financial 

agreement with another entity. The peak 

shaving allowance would expire in 

2017. The EPA is specifying that the 

power can only be used at the facility 

or towards the local system, and the 

engine can only be operated for peak 

shaving as part of a program with the 

local distribution system operator. The 

EPA is also clarifying that an engine that 

exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak 

shaving, will be considered a nonemergency engine and subject to the 

requirements for non-emergency 

engines for the remaining life of the 

engine. 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE 

Greater Than 500 HP Located at Area 

Sources 

1. Background 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

the requirements that apply to existing 

stationary non-emergency 4 stroke SI 

RICE greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP emissions, which are 

generally natural gas fired engines. 

Currently, the RICE NESHAP requires 

owners and operators of such engines to 

(1) either meet a CO concentration limit 

of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or 

reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or 

more, if the engines are 4SLB; and (2) 

to meet a formaldehyde concentration 

limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or 

reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more, if the engines are 

4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects 

that the standards would be met using 

aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 

4SLB engines and NSCR for 4SRB 

engines. In addition to these emission 

requirements, owners and operators of 

existing stationary 4-stroke engines 

greater than 500 HP at area sources are 

also subject to monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

After the final requirements for 

existing stationary SI engines greater 

than 500 HP at area sources were 

published on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 

51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708– 

0581), the American Petroleum Institute 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0582), the 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of 

America (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708– 

0584), and the Gas Processors 

Association (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708–0587) requesting that the EPA 

reconsider the requirements of the final 

rule. The petitioners expressed many 

similar concerns. As relevant to this 

rulemaking, petitioners stated that the 

EPA did not take into account the 

difference in population density and 

subsequently did not consider the 

difference in health impacts in remote 

versus more heavily populated 

locations. In the petitioners’ opinion, 

there should be less concern about 

engines that are located farther away 

from people; the petitioners believed 

that the EPA has substantial latitude in 

requiring less stringent standards for 

owners and operators of stationary 

engines in remote areas. 

While the EPA does not share all of 

the views of the petitioners regarding 

the difference between engines based on 

their location, the EPA does believe that 

it is reasonable to create a subcategory 

of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP located in areas 

remote from human activity. Engines 

located in remote areas that are not 

close to significant human activity may 

be difficult to access, may not have 

electricity or communications, and may 

be unmanned most of the time. The 

costs of the emission controls, testing, 

and continuous monitoring 

requirements may be unreasonable 

when compared to the HAP emission 

reductions that would be achieved, 

considering that the engines are in 

sparsely populated areas. The EPA 

believes that establishing a subcategory 

for SI engines at area sources of HAP 

located in sparsely populated areas 

accomplishes the agency’s goals and is 

adequate in protecting public health. 

The EPA is proposing to subcategorize 

sparsely populated engines using 

criteria based on the existing DOT 

classification system for natural gas 

pipelines. This system classifies 

locations based on their distance to 

natural gas pipelines covered by the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration safety regulations. The 

DOT system defines a class location unit 

as an onshore area that extends 220 

yards or 200 meters on either side of the 

centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 

kilometers) length of natural gas 

pipeline. The DOT approach further 

classifies pipeline locations into Class 1 

through Class 4 locations based on the 

number of buildings intended for 

human occupancy. A Class 1 location is 

defined as an offshore area or any class 

location unit that has 10 or fewer 

buildings intended for human 

occupancy. The DOT classification 

system also has special provisions for 

locations that lie within 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, 

well-defined outside area (such as a 

playground, recreation area, outdoor 

theater, or other place of public 

assembly) that is occupied by 20 or 

more persons on at least 5 days a week 

for 10 weeks in any 12-month period. 

To be considered remote under this 

proposal, a source could not fall under 

this special provision and, in addition, 

must be in a Class 1 location. The EPA 

requests comment on whether engines 

located in class location units where 

buildings with four or more stories 

above ground are prevalent (Class 4 

areas under the DOT classification 

system) should also specifically not be 

considered remote. 

Stakeholders from the oil and gas 

industry have indicated to the EPA that 

the DOT system is well-established and 

there would be substantial overlap 

between engines on natural gas 

pipelines affected by the rule and 

covered by the DOT pipeline 

classification system. Incorporating this 

approach would also create 

harmonization between the EPA and 

DOT and would reduce the 

implementation and enforcement 

burden for states. Implementation for 

affected sources would also be less 

burdensome because the system is 

already in place and used by the natural 

gas pipeline industry and covers the 

majority of these engines. Stakeholders 

have indicated they are required to 

review the class location status of 

natural gas pipeline segments annually. 

The EPA believes this approach is 

reasonable for defining the subcategory 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33821 

of remote engines for those engines that 

are associated with natural gas 

pipelines. For those engines not 

associated with pipelines, the EPA is 

using similar criteria. An engine would 

be considered to be in sparsely 

populated areas if within 0.25 mile 

radius of the engine there are 5 or fewer 

buildings intended for human 

occupancy. EPA requests comment on 

whether, to be considered remote, an 

engine not associated with a natural gas 

pipeline should also need to be farther 

than 100 yards (91 meters) of either a 

building or a small, well-defined 

outside area (such as a playground, 

recreation area, outdoor theater, or other 

place of public assembly) that is 

occupied by 20 or more persons on at 

least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period. 

The EPA is proposing management 

practices as generally available control 

technologies for existing stationary SI 

4SLB and 4SRB area source nonemergency engines located in sparsely 

populated areas. Given the remote 

location of the engines from human 

activity, the EPA believes that it is 

appropriate not to include requirements 

that would necessitate aftertreatment 

and extensive testing and monitoring. 

The EPA has previously estimated that 

the costs of oxidation catalyst for 

existing 4SLB and 4SRB engines above 

500 HP at area sources are $310 and 

$150 million, for capital and annual 

costs, respectively. The capital and 

annual costs of the RICE NESHAP for 

existing 4SLB and 4SRB engines above 

500 HP at area sources would be $30 

million and $12 million, respectively, if 

these proposed amendments are 

incorporated into the rule. Creating a 

subcategory of these engines for the 

ones located in sparsely populated areas 

and not mandating emission controls 

would significantly reduce the cost of 

the rule for such engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 

4SRB area source non-emergency 

engines that are located in populated 

areas, the EPA is proposing an 

equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst 

that will have to be tested initially and 

annually to ensure that the catalyst is 

working properly and reducing 

emissions as required. In addition, these 

units will be required to have devices to 

shut down the engine if the catalyst is 

exposed to dangerous temperatures or 

have continuous monitoring equipment 

installed to record catalyst inlet 

temperatures. The EPA is proposing 

shorter test duration and less rigorous 

methods than currently required while 

still ensuring that HAP reductions 

remain at expected levels for these 

engines located in populated areas. The 

specific amendments the EPA is 

proposing are discussed below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

Owners and operators of engines in 

sparsely populated areas would have to 

conduct a review of the surrounding 

area every 12 months to determine if the 

nearby population has changed. If the 

engine no longer meets the criteria for 

a sparsely populated area the owner and 

operator must within 1 year comply 

with the emission standards specified 

below for populated areas. The EPA 

requests comment on whether engines 

that are not associated with pipelines 

should be required to conduct the 

review less frequently than every 12 

months. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary 4SLB and 4SRB greater than 

500 HP at area sources that are in 

sparsely populated areas as described 

above would be required to perform the 

following: 

• Change oil and filter every 1,440 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first; 

• Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

• Inspect all hoses and belts every 

1,440 hours of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil 

analysis program as described in 

§ 63.6625(i) of the rule in order to 

extend the specified oil change 

requirement. The oil analysis must be 

performed at the same frequency 

specified for changing the oil in Table 

2d of the rule. The analysis program 

must at a minimum analyze the 

following three parameters: Total Acid 

Number, viscosity, and percent water 

content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total 

Acid Number increases by more than 

3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide 

per gram from Total Acid 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 within 2 days of 

receiving the results of the analysis; if 

the engine is not in operation when the 

results of the analysis are received, the 

engine owner or operator must change 

the oil within 2 days or before 

commencing operation, whichever is 

later. 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. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary 4SLB and 4SRB area source 

engines above 500 HP in sparsely 

populated areas would also have to 

operate and maintain the stationary 

RICE and aftertreatment control device 

(if any) according to the manufacturer’s 

emission-related written instructions or 

develop their 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. 

For engines in populated areas, i.e., 

existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB nonemergency engines greater than 500 HP 

at area sources that are located on DOT 

Class 2 through Class 4 pipeline 

segments or, for engines not associated 

with pipelines, that do not meet the 0.25 

mile radius with 5 or less buildings 

criteria, the EPA is proposing to adopt 

an equipment standard requiring the 

installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP 

emissions. Owners and operators of 

existing area source 4SLB nonemergency engines greater than 500 HP 

in populated areas would be required to 

install an oxidation catalyst. Owners 

and operators of existing area source 

4SRB non-emergency engines greater 

than 500 HP in populated areas would 

be required to install NSCR. Owners and 

operators must conduct an initial test to 

demonstrate that the engine achieves at 

least a 93 percent reduction in CO 

emissions or a CO concentration level of 

47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2, if the engine 

is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and 

operators must conduct an initial 

performance test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO 

reduction or a 30 percent THC 

reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB 

engine. The initial test must consist of 

three test runs. Each test run must be of 

at least 15 minute duration, except that 

each test run conducted using the 

proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ must consist of one 

measurement cycle as defined by the 

method and include at least 2 minutes 

of test data phase measurement. To 

measure CO, emission sources must use 

the CO methods already specified in 

subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ. The THC testing must be 

conducted using EPA Method 25A. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The owner or operator of both engine 

types must also use a high temperature 

shutdown device that detects if the 

catalyst inlet temperature is too high, or, 

alternatively, the owner or operator can 

monitor the catalyst inlet temperature 

continuously and maintain the 

temperature within the range specified 

in the rule. For 4SLB engines the 

catalyst inlet temperature must remain 

at or above 450 °F and at or below 

1,350 °F. For 4SRB engines the 

temperature range must be greater than 

or equal to 750 °F and less than or equal 

to 1,250 °F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in 

addition to the initial performance test 

conduct annual checks of the catalyst to 

ensure proper catalyst activity. The 

annual check of the catalyst must at a 

minimum consist of one 15-minute run 

using the methods discussed above, 

except that each test run conducted 

using the proposed appendix A to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by 

the method and include at least 2 

minutes of test data phase measurement. 

Owners and operators of 4SLB engines 

must demonstrate during the catalyst 

activity test that the catalyst achieves at 

least a 93 percent reduction in CO 

emissions or that the engine exhaust CO 

emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd 

at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators 

of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that 

their catalyst is reducing CO emissions 

by 75 percent or more, or alternatively, 

that THC emissions are being reduced 

by at least 30 percent during the catalyst 

activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do 

not exceed the levels required for the 

initial test or annual checks of the 

catalyst, then the catalyst is considered 

to be working properly. If the emissions 

exceed the specified pollutant levels in 

the rule, the exceedance(s) is/are not 

considered a violation, but the owner or 

operator would be required to shut 

down the engine and take appropriate 

corrective action (e.g., repairs, clean or 

replace the catalyst, as appropriate). A 

follow-up test must be conducted 

within 7 days of the engine being started 

up again to demonstrate that the 

emission levels are being met. If the 

retest shows that the emissions continue 

to exceed the specified levels, the 

stationary RICE must again be shut 

down as soon as safely possible, and the 

engine may not operate, except for 

purposes of start-up and testing, until 

the owner/operator demonstrates 

through testing that the emissions do 

not exceed the levels specified. 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San 

Joaquin Valley 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE 

NESHAP, the EPA required existing 

non-emergency CI engines above 300 HP 

to meet a standard of either 70 percent 

reduction of CO emissions or 49 ppmvd 

CO, for engines between 300 and 500 

HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for engines above 

500 HP. The requirements also included 

testing and monitoring provisions. As 

with all requirements for existing 

engines in that rule, owners and 

operators were required to meet the 

requirements within 3 years of the 

effective date of the regulations (May 3, 

2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for 

existing stationary CI engines, 

stakeholders from the agricultural 

industry in the San Joaquin Valley area 

of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these 

requirements on engines in the San 

Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 

has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in 

San Joaquin Valley certified to the Tier 

3 standards in 40 CFR part 89 that were 

installed between January 1 and June 

12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, stationary 

CI engines at area sources are existing if 

construction of the engine commenced 

prior to June 12, 2006. These 17 Tier 3 

engines in the San Joaquin Valley, 

which were built to meet stringent 

emission standards, would not be able 

to comply with the applicable RICE 

NESHAP emission standards for 

existing engines without further testing 

and monitoring, and possible retrofit 

with further controls, due to differences 

in the emission standards and testing 

protocols in the RICE NESHAP versus 

the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. 

However, an identical engine certified 

to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 

standards for engines above 560 

kilowatts (kW)) in 40 CFR part 89 that 

was installed after June 12, 2006, would 

not have to be retrofit in order to 

comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI 

engines installed after June 12, 2006, at 

area sources of HAP are required to 

comply with the NSPS for stationary CI 

engines, which requires engines to be 

certified to the standards in 40 CFR 

parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as 

applicable. Thus, a 2006 model year 

stationary CI engine installed after June 

12, 2006, that is certified to the 

applicable standards would meet the 

requirements of the NESHAP without 

further controls or testing. While the 

EPA does not know if other certified 

Tier 3 engines besides these 17 engines 

in the San Joaquin Valley were installed 

prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the 

same rationale should apply to any such 

engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 

standards (Tier 2 for engines above 560 

kW) are technologically stringent 

regulations and believes it is 

unnecessary to require further 

regulation of engines meeting these 

standards. Engines meeting the Tier 3 

standards typically employed emission 

control technologies such as combustion 

optimization and better fuel control to 

meet the Tier 3 standards. In order to 

address the concerns raised by the 

engine owners in the San Joaquin 

Valley, the EPA is proposing changes to 

amend the requirements for any 

certified Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 

560 kW) stationary CI engine located at 

an area source and installed before June 

12, 2006. The EPA is proposing 

amendments to specify that any existing 

certified Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 

560 kW) CI engine that was installed 

before June 12, 2006, is in compliance 

with the NESHAP. This amendment 

would include any existing stationary 

Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) 

certified CI engine located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

Another concern brought to the EPA’s 

attention by the San Joaquin Valley 

agricultural industry is that due to state 

and local requirements in the San 

Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are 

regulated as existing sources under the 

NESHAP must be replaced in the next 

few years, only a short time after the 

emission standards for existing engines 

must be met. Specifically, the San 

Joaquin Valley APCD rule for internal 

combustion engines (Rule 4702) 

requires Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

engines to meet Tier 4 standards by 

January 1, 2015, or 12 years after the 

installation date, but no later than June 

1, 2018. The concern is that owners and 

operators of these engines would have 

to install aftertreatment by 2013 to meet 

the emission standards of the RICE 

NESHAP and then only a few years later 

be required to replace their engines per 

San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. 

The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 

Tier 2 engines that are scheduled to be 

replaced under the local rule. The EPA 

has not identified any engines outside 

the San Joaquin Valley APCD area that 

are in the same or similar situation (i.e., 

required to be replaced shortly after the 

compliance date for existing engines), 

but the EPA does not preclude the 

possibility that there are such engines in 

other areas, and requests comment and 

information on other areas that may 

have similar concerns. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33823 

The EPA does not think it is 

appropriate to require emission controls 

on a stationary CI engine that is going 

to be retired only a short time after the 

rule goes into effect. Stationary CI 

engines would have to comply with this 

rule by May 3, 2013, and owners of 

engines above 300 HP are expected to 

have to install aftertreatment on their 

engines in order to meet the emission 

standards. The EPA estimates that the 

one-time cost to equip a 500 HP 

stationary CI engine with the controls 

necessary to meet the emission 

standards under this rule is close to 

$14,000 and more than $3,000 on a 

yearly basis, not accounting for 

additional costs associated with 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and 

reporting. These engines (equipped with 

aftertreatment) could end up being in 

operation for less than 2 years or at most 

only 5 years before having to be 

replaced with a certified Tier 4 engine, 

as required by San Joaquin Valley 

District Rule 4702. It would not be 

reasonable to require the engine owner 

to invest in costly controls and 

monitoring equipment for an engine that 

will be replaced shortly after the 

installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources of HAP 

emissions to address this concern. The 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements for existing stationary Tier 

1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines located 

at area sources that are greater than 300 

HP that are subject to a state or local 

rule that requires the engine to be 

replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow 

these engines to meet management 

practices from the applicable May 3, 

2013, compliance date until January 1, 

2015, or 12 years after installation date 

(whichever is later), but not later than 

June 1, 2018. This proposed change 

would provide owners enough time to 

replace their engines without mandating 

a possibly cost prohibitive requirement 

to change all of the engines in a short 

amount of time, while still requiring 

that replacement of the engine or a 

retrofit of the engine occur relatively 

quickly after the owner would have to 

comply with the NESHAP. The EPA is 

proposing that these engines be subject 

to management practices until January 

1, 2015, or 12 years after installation 

date (whichever is later), but not later 

than June 1, 2018, after which time the 

CO emission standards discussed above 

(and that are in Table 2d of the rule) 

apply. The management practices 

include requirements for when to 

inspect and replace the engine oil and 

filter, air cleaner, hoses and belts. The 

complete details of which management 

practices are required are shown in 

Table 2d of the rule. Owners and 

operators of these existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources of HAP 

emissions that intend to meet 

management practices rather than the 

emission limits prior to January 1, 2015, 

or 12 years after installation date, but 

not later than June 1, 2018, must submit 

a notification by March 3, 2013, stating 

that they intend to use this provision 

and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

1. Background 

The RICE NESHAP currently specifies 

less stringent requirements for existing 

non-emergency CI engines at area 

sources located in remote areas of 

Alaska. Remote areas are defined as 

those not accessible by the FAHS. The 

FAHS includes areas with year-round 

ferry service that are not on the 

contiguous road system. Under the 

current regulation, stationary nonemergency CI engines at area sources in 

areas of Alaska that are not accessible by 

the FAHS are subject to management 

practices as opposed to numerical 

emission standards. 

Following the publication of the final 

rule in 2010, the EPA received requests 

to expand the definition of remote areas 

of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that 

facilities in areas that are accessible by 

the FAHS but are not connected to the 

Alaska Railbelt grid face the same 

challenges as those in areas not 

accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska 

Railbelt Grid refers to the service areas 

of the six regulated public utilities that 

extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage 

and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities 

are the Golden Valley Electric 

Association, Chugach Electric 

Association, Matanuska Electric 

Association, Homer Electric 

Association, Anchorage Municipal Light 

& Power, and the City of Seward Electric 

System. According to the stakeholders, 

one reason for broadening the definition 

of remote areas in Alaska is high energy 

costs, which provide a natural incentive 

to run CI engines as little as possible. 

The cost of energy is utilities’ greatest 

concern in Alaska. Also, the 

stakeholders indicated that extreme 

weather conditions in certain areas of 

Alaska is another reason for including 

additional areas in the definition of 

remote areas of Alaska. The climate 

issue is unique to remote areas of Alaska 

that experience some of the most 

extreme temperatures in the country. 

Heavy snowfall and high winds are not 

uncommon in several areas that are 

accessible by the FAHS. For instance, 

Copper Valley Electric Association 

(CVEA) is a utility accessible by the 

FAHS, but it includes areas that face the 

same challenges as other communities 

not accessible by the FAHS. The utility 

operates on an isolated grid and relies 

on diesel power generation. In one of 

CVEA’s territories, Valdez, Alaska, 

CVEA indicated that this area 

experiences brutal conditions and stated 

that Valdez is considered to have the 

greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) 

in any city of the United States. Also, 

winds at more than 100 miles per hour 

are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, 

according to CVEA. Temperatures 

between 40 and 50 below zero are also 

not abnormal, which emphasizes the 

extreme reliance on power, CVEA 

asserted. Travel times and accessibility 

are issues on a regular basis, but can be 

additionally exacerbated due to severe 

weather, which in some cases may lead 

to avalanches and road closings. In 

particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, 

in the event of poor weather conditions 

and road closings, there are in many 

cases no alternate roads to travel on. 

Further, access to specific isolated sites 

can also be problematic in particular 

remote areas of Alaska and the problems 

are unique to Alaska because of the 

infrastructure and environment. For 

example, communities made the case 

that sources along the AMHS that are 

only accessible by the AMHS should be 

treated the same way as communities 

not accessible by the FAHS. The AMHS 

primarily serves passengers and 

vehicles, and is not intended for 

transporting goods. Therefore, the same 

methods used to bring in goods to 

communities not on the FAHS are the 

same as those Alaskan villages served 

only by the AMHS. Goods are typically 

brought in to remote communities by 

barge and this is another example of a 

scenario that is unique to Alaska. Other 

arguments for expanding the definition 

of remote areas of Alaska beyond those 

not accessible by the FAHS include very 

low population density in many other 

remote areas although accessible by the 

FAHS, and the fact that many of these 

areas are not connected to the electric 

grid and rely on back up diesel 

generation to support fluctuating 

renewable energy systems. The energy 

supply system is another area that is 

particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country 

where the majority of customers are 

connected to the grid. Therefore, for the 

reasons discussed, the EPA is proposing 

expansion of the remote area source 

category. This proposal is supported by 

the Alaska Department of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Environmental Conservation and 

communities with whom the EPA has 

discussed this issue. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

The EPA is proposing to expand the 

current definition of remote areas of 

Alaska to extend beyond areas that are 

not accessible by the FAHS. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the 

FAHS and that meet all of the following 

criteria are also considered remote and 

subject to management practices under 

the rule: 

• The stationary CI engine is located 

in an area not connected to the Alaska 

Railbelt Grid, 

• At least 10 percent of the power 

generated by the engine per year is used 

for residential purposes, and 

• The system capacity is less than 12 

megawatts, or the engine is used 

exclusively for backup power for 

renewable energy and is used less than 

500 hours per year on a 10-year rolling 

average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the 

remote classification to engines that are 

used at least partially for residential 

purposes, where the impact of higher 

energy costs is of greatest concern. The 

classification is further limited to 

sources that are used infrequently as 

backup for renewable power, or that are 

at smaller capacity facilities, which are 

generally in more sparsely populated 

areas. 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and 

Revisions 

The EPA is making some minor 

corrections to the stationary engine 

rules to address miscellaneous issues. 

The EPA is making some minor 

revisions in the rules to correct mistakes 

in the current rules or to clarify the 

rules. The revisions are as follows: 

• Revising Tables 1b and 2b of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to correct 

language requiring the pressure drop to 

be at plus or minus 10 percent 100 

percent load for all engines. The engines 

that were regulated in 2010 are not 

subject to the load requirements and 

therefore the EPA is correcting these 

tables to make this clear. 

• Adding a footnote to Table 1b of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ stating that 

sources can petition the Administrator 

for a different temperature range 

consistent with Table 2b of the rule. 

• Correcting rows 8 and 10 in Table 

2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to 

indicate that the requirements apply to 

non-emergency, non-black start 

stationary RICE greater than 500 HP that 

are 4SLB and 4SRB that operate more 

than 24 hours per year, as intended in 

the original rule. 

• Revising the language in 

§ 63.6625(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ that states ‘‘* * * in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (5) of this section’’ to ‘‘in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section.’’ 

• Changing Tables 2c and 2d of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, where it 

currently specifies to inspect air cleaner, 

to also specify that it must be replaced 

as necessary. 

• Revising § 63.6620(b) of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ to indicate that testing 

must be conducted within plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load for 

stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at a major source (except 

existing non-emergency CI stationary 

RICE greater than 500 HP located at a 

major source) that are subject to testing. 

• Specifying that, as was intended in 

the rule adding these requirements, the 

operating limitations (pressure drop and 

catalyst inlet temperature) in Tables 1b 

and 2b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

do not have to be met during startup. 

• For consistency, and as provided in 

the original RICE NESHAP for other 

stationary RICE, clarifying in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ that the existing 

stationary RICE regulated in 2010 (i.e., 

engines constructed before June 12, 

2006 that are less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources or engines 

located at area sources) must burn 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 

percent or more of the gross heat input 

on an annual basis in order to qualify as 

a landfill or digester gas engine under 

the rule. 

• Clarifying § 60.4207(b) of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart IIII to specify that 

owners and operators of stationary CI 

engines less than 30 liters per cylinder 

that are subject to the subpart that use 

diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

80.510(b), except owners and operators 

may use up any diesel fuel acquired 

prior to October 1, 2010, that does not 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

• Adding appendix A to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ, which includes 

procedures that can be used for 

measuring CO emissions from existing 

stationary 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE above 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP that are complying with 

the emission limits in Table 2d of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

• Reinstating the footnotes for Table 2 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. The 

footnotes were inadvertently removed 

when the rule was amended on June 28, 

2011 (76 FR 37954). 

• Adding ‘‘part 60’’ in Table 4 of the 

NESHAP, in row 2 where it refers to 40 

CFR appendix A. 

• Clarifying in § 63.6625(a) of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ that a continuous 

emission monitoring system is only 

required to be installed at the outlet of 

the control device for engines that are 

complying with the requirement to limit 

the concentration of CO. 

• Clarifying that, as was intended in 

the rule adding these requirements, all 

of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in § 60.4231(b) of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ are for stationary SI RICE 

that use gasoline. 

• Clarifying that, as was intended in 

the rule adding these requirements, all 

of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in § 60.4231(c) of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ are for stationary SI RICE 

that are rich burn engines that use LPG. 

• Clarifying that, as was intended in 

the rule adding these requirements, all 

of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in § 60.4231(d) of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ are for stationary SI RICE 

that are not gasoline engines or rich 

burn engines that use LPG. 

G. Compliance Date 

The EPA has received questions 

regarding whether the compliance dates 

for engines impacted by the 2010 

amendments and this proposed 

reconsideration will be extended. 

Affected sources that may be impacted 

by this action have expressed concern 

about having sufficient time to comply 

with the rule by the compliance date, 

which is May 3, 2013, for existing 

stationary CI RICE and October 19, 

2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. 

Sources impacted by this 

reconsideration are particularly 

concerned with compliance in the event 

that the EPA does not finalize changes 

that are substantially similar to the 

changes being proposed in this action. 

The EPA does not intend to extend the 

May 3, 2013, and October 19, 2013, 

compliance dates, because there are 

many engines that must meet those 

compliance dates that are not impacted 

by this reconsideration. However, the 

EPA notes that sources that are affected 

by the reconsideration and that may 

need additional time to install controls 

to comply with the applicable 

requirements can request up to an 

additional year to install controls, as 

specified in 40 CFR 63.6(i). The EPA 

requests comment regarding whether 

special consideration should be given to 

engines whose requirements would be 

reduced by this proposal if, in the final 

rule, the EPA does not finalize the 

proposed reduced requirements. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33825 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The EPA estimates that the rule with 

the proposed amendments incorporated 

will reduce emissions from existing 

stationary RICE as shown in Table 1 of 

this preamble. The emissions reductions 

the EPA previously estimated for the 

2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP 

are shown for comparison. Reductions 

are shown for the year 2013, which is 

the first year the final RICE NESHAP 

will be implemented for existing 

stationary RICE. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE 

Pollutant 

Emission reductions (tpy) in the year 2013 

2010 Final rule 2010 Final rule with these 

proposed amendments 

CI SI CI SI 

HAP .................................................................................................................................. 1,014 6,008 1,005 1,778 

CO .................................................................................................................................... 14,342 109,321 14,238 22,211 

PM .................................................................................................................................... 2,844 N/A 2,818 N/A 

NOX .................................................................................................................................. N/A 96,479 N/A 9,648 

VOC ................................................................................................................................. 27,395 30,907 27,142 9,147 

The EPA estimates that more than 

900,000 stationary CI engines will be 

subject to the rule in total, but only a 

small number of stationary CI engines 

are affected by the proposed 

amendments in this action. It is 

estimated that approximately 330,000 

stationary SI engines will be subject to 

the rule in total; however, only a subset 

of stationary SI engines are affected by 

the proposed amendments in this 

action. The decrease in estimated 

reductions for SI engines is primarily 

due to proposed amendments to the 

requirements for existing 4SRB and 

4SLB SI engines larger than 500 HP at 

area sources of HAP that are in remote 

areas. Those engines were required by 

the 2010 rule to meet emission limits 

that were expected to require the 

installation of aftertreatment to reduce 

emissions; under these proposed 

amendments, those engines are required 

to meet management practices that 

would not require the installation of 

aftertreatment. Further information 

regarding the estimated reductions of 

this final rule can be found in the 

memorandum titled, ‘‘RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration Amendments—Cost 

and Environmental Impacts,’’ which is 

available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0708). The EPA did not estimate 

any reductions associated with the 

minor changes to the NSPS for 

stationary CI and SI engines. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

The proposed amendments are 

expected to reduce the overall cost of 

the original 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments. The EPA estimates that 

with these proposed amendments 

incorporated the cost of the rule for 

existing stationary RICE will be as 

shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The 

costs the EPA previously estimated for 

the 2010 amendments to the RICE 

NESHAP are shown for comparison. 

The costs that were previously 

estimated are shown in the original year 

($2008 for CI and $2009 for SI), as well 

as updated to 2010 dollars. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE 

Engine 2010 Final rule 2010 Final rule with these proposed amendments 

Total Annual Cost 

SI ................................ $253 million ($2009) ...................................... $251 million ($2010) ...................................... $115 million ($2010). 

CI ................................ $373 million ($2008) ...................................... $375 million ($2010) ...................................... $373 million ($2010). 

Total Capital Cost 

SI ................................ $383 million ($2009) ...................................... $380 million ($2010) ...................................... $103 million ($2010). 

CI ................................ $744 million ($2008) ...................................... $748 million ($2010) ...................................... $740 million ($2010). 

Further information regarding the 

estimated cost impacts of the proposed 

amendments, including the cost of the 

proposed amendments in 2010 dollars, 

can be found in the memorandum titled, 

‘‘RICE NESHAP Reconsideration 

Amendments—Cost and Environmental 

Impacts,’’ which is available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708). 

The EPA did not estimate costs 

associated with the changes to the NSPS 

for stationary CI and SI engines. The 

changes to the NSPS are minor and are 

not expected to impact the costs of those 

rules. 

C. What are the benefits? 

Emission controls installed to meet 

the requirements of these rules will 

generate benefits by reducing emissions 

of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and 

their precursors, including CO, NOX and 

VOC. NOX and VOC are precursors to 

PM2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 

microns) and ozone. The criteria 

pollutant benefits are considered cobenefits for these rules. For these rules, 

we were only able to quantify the health 

co-benefits associated with reduced 

exposure to PM2.5 from emission 

reductions of NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. 

The EPA previously estimated that 

the monetized co-benefits in 2013 of the 

stationary CI NESHAP would be $940 

million to $2,300 million (2008 dollars) 

at a 3-percent discount rate and $850 

million to $2,100 million (2008 dollars) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Existing 

Stationary Compression Ignition Engines NESHAP: 

Final Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. February. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ 

CIRICENESHAPRIA2-17-0cleanpublication.pdf. 

6U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Existing 

Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE NESHAP: Final 

Report. Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ 

riceriafinal.pdf. 

7Roman, 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. 

8Fann, 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. 

9U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. 

Technical support document: Estimating the benefit 

per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from other 

point sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

10Stationary engines are included in the other 

non-EGU point source category. If the affected 

stationary engines are more rural than the average 

of the non-EGU sources modeled, then it is possible 

that the benefits may be somewhat less than we 

have estimated here. The TSD provides the 

geographic distribution of the air quality changes 

at a 7-percent discount rate.5 For 

stationary SI engines, EPA previously 

estimated that the monetized co-benefits 

in 2013 would be $510 million to $1,200 

million (2009 dollars) at a 3-percent 

discount rate) and $460 million to 

$1,100 million (2009 dollars) at a 7- 

percent discount rate.6

The proposed amendments are 

expected to reduce the overall emission 

reductions of the rules. In addition to 

revising the anticipated emission 

reductions, we have also updated the 

methodology used to calculate the cobenefits to be consistent with methods 

used in more recent rulemakings, which 

is summarized below and discussed in 

more detail in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA). We estimate the 

monetized co-benefits of the proposed 

amendments of the CI NESHAP in 2013 

to be $770 million to $1,900 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate and $690 million to $1,700 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount 

rate. For SI engines, we estimate the 

monetized co-benefits of the proposed 

amendments in 2013 to be $62 million 

to $150 million (2010 dollars) at a 3- 

percent discount rate and $55 million to 

$140 million (2010 dollars) at a 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 

these two estimates.7 A summary of the 

monetized co-benefits estimates for CI 

and SI engines at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 3 of 

this preamble. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NESHAP FOR

STATIONARY CI AND SI ENGINES

[Millions of 2010 dollars] a,b

Pollutant Emission reductions 

(tons per year) 

Total monetized co-benefits 

(3 percent discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7 percent 

discount) 

Original 2010 Final Rules c

Stationary CI Engines: 

Total Benefits ................................... 2,844 PM2.5 ............................................

27,395 VOC ...........................................

$950 to $2,300 ....................................... $860 to $2,100. 

Stationary SI Engines: 

Total Benefits ................................... 96,479 NOX ............................................

30,907 VOC ...........................................

$510 to $1,300 ....................................... $470 to $1,100. 

2010 Final Rules with these Proposed Amendments 

Stationary CI Engines: 

Directly emitted PM2.5 ...................... 2,818 ...................................................... $770 to $1,900 ....................................... $690 to $1,700. 

Stationary SI Engines: 

NOX .................................................. 9,648 ...................................................... $62 to $150 ............................................ $55 to $140. 

aAll estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total 

monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such 

as NOX and directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to 

HAP, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. bPM co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless 

of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. cThe benefits analysis for the 2010 final rules applied out-dated benefit-per-ton estimates compared to the updated estimates described in this 

preamble and reflected monetized co-benefits for VOC emissions, which limits direct comparability with the monetized co-benefits estimated for 

these proposed rules. In addition, these estimates have been updated from their original currency years to 2010$, so the rounded estimates for 

the 2010 final rules may not match the original RIAs. 

These co-benefits estimates represent 

the total monetized human health 

benefits for populations exposed to less 

PM2.5 in 2013 from controls installed to 

reduce air pollutants in order to meet 

these rules. To estimate human health 

co-benefits of these rules, the EPA used 

benefit-per-ton factors to quantify the 

changes in PM2.5-related health impacts 

and monetized benefits based on 

changes in directly emitted PM2.5 and 

NOX emissions. These benefit-per-ton 

factors were derived using the general 

approach and methodology laid out in 

Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009).8

This approach uses a model to convert 

emissions of PM2.5 precursors into 

changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes 

in human health associated with that 

change in air quality, which are then 

divided by the emission reductions to 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

However, for these rules, we utilized air 

quality modeling of emissions in the 

‘‘Non-EGU Point other’’ category 

because we do not have modeling 

specifically for stationary engines.9 10


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33827 

associated with this sector. It is important to 

emphasize that this modeling represents the best 

available information on the air quality impact on 

a per ton basis for these sources. 

11Pope, 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. 

12Laden, et al., 2006. Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 

173:667–672. 

13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. 

Proposed Amendments Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air and 

Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

The primary difference between the 

estimates used in this analysis and the 

estimates reported in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009) is the air quality 

modeling data utilized. While the air 

quality data used in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009) reflects broad pollutant/ 

source category combinations, such as 

all non-EGU stationary point sources, 

the air quality modeling data used in 

this analysis has narrower sector 

categories. In addition, the updated air 

quality modeling data reflects more 

recent emissions data (2005 rather than 

2001) and has a higher spatial resolution 

(12-km rather than 36-km grid cells). 

The benefits methodology, such as 

health endpoints assessed, risk 

estimates applied, and valuation 

techniques applied did not change. As 

a result, the benefit-per-ton estimates 

presented herein better reflect the 

geographic areas and populations likely 

to be affected by this sector. However, 

these updated estimates still have 

similar limitations as all nationalaverage benefit-per-ton estimates in that 

they reflect the geographic distribution 

of the modeled emissions, which may 

not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking, and they 

may not reflect local variability in 

population density, meteorology, 

exposure, baseline health incidence 

rates, or other local factors for any 

specific location. 

We apply these national benefit-perton estimates calculated for this sector 

separately for directly emitted PM2.5 and 

NOX and multiply them by the 

corresponding emission reductions. The 

sector modeling does not provide 

estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits 

associated with reducing VOC 

emissions, but these unquantified 

benefits are generally small compared to 

other PM2.5 precursors. More 

information regarding the derivation of 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this 

category is available in the technical 

support document, which is available in 

the docket. 

These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical 

composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the 

scientific evidence is not yet sufficient 

to allow differentiation of effects 

estimates by particle type. The main 

PM2.5 precursors affected by these rules 

are directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX. 

Even though we assume that all fine 

particles have equivalent health effects, 

the benefit-per-ton estimates vary 

between precursors depending on the 

location and magnitude of their impact 

on PM2.5 levels, which drive population 

exposure. For example, directly emitted 

PM2.5 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 benefits would be 

lower. 

It is important to note that the 

magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. Experts have advised the 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. 

We cite two key empirical studies, one 

based on the American Cancer Society 

cohort study 11 and the extended Six 

Cities cohort study.12 In the RIA for this 

proposed amendments rule, which is 

available in the docket, we also include 

benefits estimates derived from the 

expert judgments and other 

assumptions. 

The 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. After reviewing the scientific 

literature, we have determined that the 

no-threshold model is the most 

appropriate model for assessing the 

mortality benefits associated with 

reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent 

with this finding, we have conformed 

the previous threshold sensitivity 

analysis to the current state of the PM 

science by incorporating a new ‘‘Lowest 

Measured Level’’ (LML) assessment in 

the RIA accompanying these rules. 

While an LML assessment provides 

some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM 

mortality benefits, the EPA does not 

view the LML as a threshold and 

continues to quantify PM-related 

mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related cobenefits for these rules would accrue to 

populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. For this analysis, policy-specific 

air quality data are not available due to 

time or resource limitations, and thus, 

we are unable to estimate the percentage 

of premature mortality associated with 

this specific rule’s emission reductions 

at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate 

measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the 

population exposed at each PM2.5 level 

using the source apportionment 

modeling used to calculate the benefitper-ton estimates for this sector. Using 

the Pope, et al. (2002) study, 77 percent 

of the population is exposed to annual 

mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML 

of 7.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3). Using the Laden, et al. (2006) 

study, 25 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 mg/m3. It 

is important to emphasize that we have 

high confidence in PM2.5-related effects 

down to the lowest LML of the major 

cohort studies. This fact is important, 

because, as we model avoided 

premature deaths among populations 

exposed to levels of PM2.5, we have 

lower confidence in levels below the 

LML for each study. 

Every benefit analysis examining the 

potential effects of a change in 

environmental protection requirements 

is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, 

model capabilities (such as geographic 

coverage) and uncertainties in the 

underlying scientific and economic 

studies used to configure the benefit and 

cost models. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe the benefit analysis for these 

rules provides a reasonable indication of 

the expected health benefits of the 

rulemaking under a set of reasonable 

assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty 

assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) RIA because we lack the 

necessary air quality input and 

monitoring data to run the benefits 

model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for these 

rules, and using a benefit-per-ton 

approach adds another important source 

of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. 

The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits 

analysis 13 provides an indication of the 

sensitivity of our results to various 

assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized 

co-benefits estimates provided above do 

not include benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including 

exposure to HAP, NOX, ozone exposure, 

as well as ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. Although we do 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide 

monetized estimates for these proposed 

amendments, we include a qualitative 

assessment of these unquantified 

benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendments. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for 

these proposed amendments, which is 

available in the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

The EPA does not anticipate any 

significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a 

result of these proposed amendments. 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and 

Participation 

The EPA seeks full public 

participation in arriving at its final 

decisions, and strongly encourages 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposed rule from all interested 

parties. Whenever applicable, full 

supporting data and detailed analysis 

should be submitted to allow the EPA 

to make maximum use of the comments. 

The agency invites all parties to 

coordinate their data collection 

activities with the EPA to facilitate 

mutually beneficial and cost-effective 

data submissions. A redline/strikeout 

version of the complete NESHAP for 

stationary RICE, which shows the 

changes that are being proposed in this 

action, is available from the rulemaking 

docket. 

The EPA is seeking specific comment 

on the proposal to temporarily allow 

stationary emergency engines located at 

area sources to apply the 50 hours per 

year that is currently allowed under 

§ 63.6640(f) for non-emergency 

operation towards any type of nonemergency operation, including peak 

shaving and non-emergency demand 

response if the peak shaving is done as 

part of a peak shaving (load 

management) program with the local 

distribution system operator. The EPA is 

proposing that the allowance be 

removed after April 16, 2017. 

The EPA recognizes that the 

electricity grid achieves demand 

response and grid stability with and 

without the use of emergency stationary 

RICE. Alternative approaches include 

reductions or shifts in energy use, 

electricity storage, distribution 

automation, microgrids, natural gasfired combustion turbines, and gridconnected distributed generation, 

including non-emergency engines and 

combined heat and power. Many of 

these approaches can provide additional 

benefits, such as additional energy 

efficiency, lower costs, shorter 

electricity outage times, and better 

integration of renewable energy 

generation into the electricity grid. 

Several studies project a significant 

future potential for using less energy in 

homes, buildings, and industry during 

times of peak electricity demand. The 

EPA seeks comment on how these 

investments may affect the number of 

hours which emergency stationary RICE 

are needed in the future to address 

electricity peak shaving and grid 

stability. 

The EPA is also specifically seeking 

comment on the proposed criteria for 

expanding the current definition of 

remote areas of Alaska beyond areas that 

are not accessible by the FAHS. The 

EPA requests comment on whether the 

proposed system capacity limitation of 

12 megawatts and the alternative 500 

hour cap on annual usage (based on a 

10-year rolling average) are the 

appropriate criteria for distinguishing 

the areas of Alaska that, while 

accessible by the FAHS, have the same 

unique challenges as the areas that are 

not accessible by the FAHS. 

The EPA is also seeking information 

related to irrigation pump engine sizes. 

During the 2010 rulemaking, the EPA 

relied upon several sources to determine 

the potential number of irrigation 

engines that may be impacted by the 

rule. Using these sources, the EPA 

estimated that the vast majority of the 

existing irrigation engines were less 

than or equal to 300 HP. The EPA 

received several comments confirming 

this estimation. The EPA seeks 

comprehensive, nationwide information 

on the size of existing irrigation engines 

to either confirm or refute our 

understanding of existing irrigation 

engine sizes; this information will assist 

EPA in assessing the impacts of the 

2010 rule on existing irrigation engines. 

The EPA has placed information in the 

docket for this rulemaking (see EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0495) on the 

number of irrigation engines provided 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

after the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments were finalized. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. In addition, the EPA 

prepared a RIA of the potential costs 

and benefits associated with this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits, 

compliance costs and net benefits for 

the 2010 rule with the proposed 

amendments to the stationary CI engines 

NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent is in Table 4 of this 

preamble. The summary for stationary 

SI engines is included in Table 5 of this 

preamble. OMB Circular A–4 

recommends that analysis of a change in 

an existing regulatory program use a 

baseline that assumes ‘‘no change’’ in 

the existing regulation. For purposes of 

this rule, however, the EPA has decided 

that it is appropriate to assume a 

baseline in which the original 2010 rule 

did not exist. The EPA feels that this 

baseline is appropriate because full 

implementation of the final rule has not 

taken place as of yet (it will take place 

in 2013). In addition, this assumption is 

consistent with the baseline definition 

applied in the recently proposed 

NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers (76 FR 80532) 

and NSPS for Commercial/Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units (76 FR 

80452). 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE 2010 RULE WITH

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATIONARY CI ENGINE NESHAP IN 2013 

[Millions of 2010 dollars] a

3-Percent discount rate 7-Percent discount rate 

Total monetized benefits b ................................................ $770 to $1,900 ................................................................ $690 to $1,700. 

Total Compliance Costs c ................................................. $373 ................................................................................ $373. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33829 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE 2010 RULE WITH

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATIONARY CI ENGINE NESHAP IN 2013—Continued 

[Millions of 2010 dollars] a

3-Percent discount rate 7-Percent discount rate 

Net Benefits ...................................................................... $400 to $1,500 ................................................................ $320 to $1,300. 

Non-Monetized Benefits ................................................... Health effects from exposure to HAP. 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2 and ozone. 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are rounded to two significant figures. 

bThe total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5

precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These 

models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the 

scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. cThe engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE 2010 RULE WITH

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATIONARY SI ENGINE NESHAP IN 2013 

[Millions of 2010 dollars] a

3-Percent discount rate 7-Percent discount rate 

Total monetized benefits b ................................................ $62 to $150 ..................................................................... $55 to $140. 

Total Compliance Costs c ................................................. $115 ................................................................................ $115. 

Net Benefits ...................................................................... $¥53 to $35 ................................................................... $¥60 to $25. 

Non-Monetized Benefits ................................................... Health effects from exposure to HAP. 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2 and ozone. 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are rounded to two significant figures. 

bThe total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5

precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These 

models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the 

scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. cThe engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7-percent discount rate. 

For more information on the costbenefit analysis, please refer to the RIA 

for these proposed amendments, which 

is available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

action does not impose an information 

collection burden because the agency is 

not requiring any additional 

recordkeeping, reporting, notification or 

other requirements in these proposed 

amendments. The changes being 

proposed in this action do not affect 

information collection, but include 

revisions to emission standards and 

other minor issues. However, the OMB 

has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0548. The OMB control numbers 

for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 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 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. 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 CI and SI 

stationary RICE; therefore, a number of 

size standards are utilized in this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

analysis. For the 15 industries identified 

at the 6-digit NAICS code represented in 

this analysis, the employment size 

standard (where it applies) varies from 

500 to 1,000 employees. The annual 

sales standard (where it applies) is as 

low as 0.75 million dollars and as high 

as 33.5 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 

megawatt-hours (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 proposed 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 action to all 

affected small entities across all 

industries affected. The percentage of 

small entities impacted by this proposal 

having annualized costs of greater than 

1 percent of their sales is less than 2 

percent according to the small entity 

analysis. We conclude that there is no 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

this rule. 

For more information on the small 

entity impacts associated with the rule, 

please refer to the Economic Impact and 

Small Business Analyses in the public 

docket. These analyses can be found in 

the RIA for each of the rules affected by 

this action. 

Although the proposed 

reconsideration rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the 

impact of the 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 addition, as mentioned 

earlier in this preamble, EPA proposes 

to reduce regulatory requirements for a 

variety of area sources affected under 

each of the RICE rules with amendments 

to the final RICE rules promulgated in 

2010. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The EPA is proposing management 

practices for certain existing engines 

located at area sources and is proposing 

amendments that will provide owners 

and operators with alternative and less 

expensive compliance demonstration 

methods. As a result of these proposed 

changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. Thus, this rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

changes being proposed in this action 

by the agency will mostly affect 

stationary engine owners and operators 

and will not affect small governments. 

The proposed amendments will lead to 

a reduction in the cost burden. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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. This proposed 

action primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant 

economic costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and 

consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

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 this action. The EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This 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 action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action reduces the burden of the 

rule on owners and operators of 

stationary engines by providing less 

burdensome compliance demonstration 

methods to owners and operators and 

greater flexibility in the operation of 

emergency engines. As a result of these 

proposed changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A. While the agency 

identified two voluntary consensus 

standards as being potentially 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33831 

applicable, we do not propose to use it 

in this rulemaking. The two candidate 

voluntary consensus standards, ISO 

14965:2000(E) and EN 12619 (1999), 

identified would not be practical due to 

lack of equivalency, documentation, 

validation data and other important 

technical and policy considerations. 

The search and review results have been 

documented and are placed in the 

docket for the proposed rule. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(February 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. 

The EPA has concluded that it is not 

feasible to determine whether there 

would be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the 

reconsideration of this final rule, as the 

EPA does not have specific information 

about the location of the stationary RICE 

affected by this rule. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 22, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart IIII—[Amended] 

1. Section 60.4207 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 60.4207 What fuel requirements must I 

meet if I am an owner or operator of a 

stationary CI internal combustion engine 

subject to this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) Beginning October 1, 2010, owners 

and operators of stationary CI ICE 

subject to this subpart with a 

displacement of less than 30 liters per 

cylinder that use diesel fuel must use 

diesel fuel that meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel 

fuel, except that any existing diesel fuel 

purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior 

to October 1, 2010, may be used until 

depleted. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 60.4211 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 60.4211 What are my compliance 

requirements if I am an owner or operator 

of a stationary CI internal combustion 

engine? 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an 

emergency stationary ICE, you must 

operate the emergency stationary ICE 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 

section. In order for the engine to be 

considered an emergency stationary ICE 

under this subpart, any operation other 

than emergency operation, maintenance 

and testing, emergency demand 

response, and operation in nonemergency situations for 50 hours per 

year, as described in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (3) of this section, is prohibited. 

If you do not operate the engine 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 

section, the engine will not be 

considered an emergency engine under 

this subpart and must meet all 

requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on nonemergency operation will be considered 

a non-emergency engine and subject to 

the requirements for non-emergency 

engines for the remaining life of the 

engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use 

of emergency stationary ICE in 

emergency situations. 

(2) You may operate your emergency 

stationary ICE for any combination of 

the purposes specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section for a 

maximum of 100 hours per calendar 

year. Any operation for non-emergency 

situations as allowed by paragraph (f)(3) 

of this section counts as part of the 100 

hours per calendar year allowed by this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

(i) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for maintenance checks and 

readiness testing, provided that the tests 

are recommended by federal, state or 

local government, the manufacturer, the 

vendor, the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator, or 

the insurance company associated with 

the engine. 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 ICE beyond 100 

hours per calendar year. 

(ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for emergency demand 

response for periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an 

Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP– 

002–3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

(iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for periods where there is a 

deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 

percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. 

(3) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 

50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 

hours per calendar year for maintenance 

and testing and emergency demand 

response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section. The 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be 

used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 60.4219 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Emergency 

stationary internal combustion engine’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.4219 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Emergency stationary internal 

combustion engine means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine that meets all of the criteria in 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in § 60.4211(f) in order to be 

considered emergency stationary ICE. If 

the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in § 60.4211(f), 

then it is not considered to be an 

emergency stationary ICE under this 

subpart. 

(1) The stationary ICE is operated to 

provide electrical power or mechanical 

work during an emergency situation. 

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. 

(2) The stationary ICE is operated 

under limited circumstances for 

situations not included in paragraph (1) 

of this definition, as specified in 

§ 60.4211(f). 

(3) The stationary ICE operates as part 

of a financial arrangement with another 

entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as 

allowed in § 60.4211(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJJ—[Amended] 

4. Section 60.4231 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.4231 What emission standards must I 

meet if I am a manufacturer of stationary SI 

internal combustion engines or equipment 

containing such engines? 

* * * * * 

(b) Stationary SI internal combustion 

engine manufacturers must certify their 

stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 

HP) (except emergency stationary ICE 

with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) that 

use gasoline and that are manufactured 

on or after the applicable date in 

§ 60.4230(a)(2), or manufactured on or 

after the applicable date in 

§ 60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary 

ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than or equal to 130 HP, to the 

certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary 

SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP that use 

gasoline and that are manufactured on 

or after the applicable date in 

§ 60.4230(a)(4) to the Phase 1 emission 

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable 

to class II engines, and other 

requirements for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 90. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their 

stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 

KW (40 HP) with a total displacement 

less than or equal to 1,000 cubic 

centimeters (cc) that use gasoline to the 

certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

(c) Stationary SI internal combustion 

engine manufacturers must certify their 

stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 

HP) (except emergency stationary ICE 

with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) that 

are rich burn engines that use LPG and 

that are manufactured on or after the 

applicable date in § 60.4230(a)(2), or 

manufactured on or after the applicable 

date in § 60.4230(a)(4) for emergency 

stationary ICE with a maximum engine 

power greater than or equal to 130 HP, 

to the certification emission standards 

and other requirements for new nonroad 

SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. 

Stationary SI internal combustion 

engine manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP that are rich 

burn engines that use LPG and that are 

manufactured on or after the applicable 

date in § 60.4230(a)(4) to the Phase 1 

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, 

applicable to class II engines, and other 

requirements for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 90. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their 

stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 

KW (40 HP) with a total displacement 

less than or equal to 1,000 cc that are 

rich burn engines that use LPG to the 

certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

(d) Stationary SI internal combustion 

engine manufacturers who choose to 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a 

maximum engine power greater than 19 

KW (25 HP) and less than 75 KW (100 

HP) (except gasoline and rich burn 

engines that use LPG and emergency 

stationary ICE with a maximum engine 

power greater than 25 HP and less than 

130 HP) under the voluntary 

manufacturer certification program 

described in this subpart must certify 

those engines to the certification 

emission standards for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary 

SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers who choose to certify 

their emergency stationary SI ICE 

greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP 

(except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use LPG), must certify those 

engines to the Phase 1 emission 

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable 

to class II engines, for new nonroad SI 

engines in 40 CFR part 90. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their 

stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 

KW (40 HP) with a total displacement 

less than or equal to 1,000 cc (except 

gasoline and rich burn engines that use 

LPG) to the certification emission 

standards for new nonroad SI engines in 

40 CFR part 90. For stationary SI ICE 

with a maximum engine power greater 

than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 75 

KW (100 HP) (except gasoline and rich 

burn engines that use LPG and 

emergency stationary ICE with a 

maximum engine power greater than 25 

HP and less than 130 HP) manufactured 

prior to January 1, 2011, manufacturers 

may choose to certify these engines to 

the standards in Table 1 to this subpart 

applicable to engines with a maximum 

engine power greater than or equal to 

100 HP and less than 500 HP. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.4243 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.4243 What are my compliance 

requirements if I am an owner or operator 

of a stationary SI internal combustion 

engine? 

* * * * * 

(d) If you own or operate an 

emergency stationary ICE, you must 

operate the emergency stationary ICE 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section. In order for the engine to be 

considered an emergency stationary ICE 

under this subpart, any operation other 

than emergency operation, maintenance 

and testing, emergency demand 

response, and operation in nonemergency situations for 50 hours per 

year, as described in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section, is prohibited. 

If you do not operate the engine 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section, the engine will not be 

considered an emergency engine under 

this subpart and must meet all 

requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on nonemergency operation will be considered 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33833 

a non-emergency engine and subject to 

the requirements for non-emergency 

engines for the remaining life of the 

engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use 

of emergency stationary ICE in 

emergency situations. 

(2) You may operate your emergency 

stationary ICE for any combination of 

the purposes specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section for 

a maximum of 100 hours per calendar 

year. Any operation for non-emergency 

situations as allowed by paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed 

by this paragraph (d)(2). 

(i) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for maintenance checks and 

readiness testing, provided that the tests 

are recommended by federal, state, or 

local government, the manufacturer, the 

vendor, the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator, or 

the insurance company associated with 

the engine. 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 ICE beyond 100 

hours per calendar year. 

(ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for emergency demand 

response for periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an 

Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP– 

002–3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

(iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for periods where there is a 

deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 

percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. 

(3) Emergency stationary ICE may be 

operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 

50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 

hours per calendar year for maintenance 

and testing and emergency demand 

response provided in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. The 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be 

used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 60.4248 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Emergency 

stationary internal combustion engine’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.4248 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Emergency stationary internal 

combustion engine means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine that meets all of the criteria in 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in § 60.4243(d) in order to be 

considered emergency stationary ICE. If 

the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in § 60.4243(d), 

then it is not considered to be an 

emergency stationary ICE under this 

subpart. 

(1) The stationary ICE is operated to 

provide electrical power or mechanical 

work during an emergency situation. 

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. 

(2) The stationary ICE is operated 

under limited circumstances for 

situations not included in paragraph (1) 

of this definition, as specified in 

§ 60.4243(d). 

(3) The stationary ICE operates as part 

of a financial arrangement with another 

entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as 

allowed in § 60.4243(d)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

7. Table 2 to subpart JJJJ of part 60 is 

revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 60.4244, you must 

comply with the following requirements 

for performance tests within 10 percent 

of 100 percent peak (or the highest 

achievable) load: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 60—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

For each Complying with the 

requirement to You must Using According to the following requirements 

1. Stationary SI internal 

combustion engine demonstrating compliance 

according to § 60.4244.

a. limit the concentration of 

NOX in the stationary SI 

internal combustion engine exhaust.

i. Select the sampling port 

location and the number 

of traverse points.

(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A or ASTM Method 

D6522–00 (2005) a.

(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 internal combustion engine exhaust at 

the sampling port location.

(2) Method 3, 3A, or 3Bb

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or ASTM Method D6522–00 (2005) a.

(b) Measurements to determine O2 concentration 

must be made at the 

same time as the measurements for NOX concentration. 

iii. If necessary, determine 

the exhaust flowrate of 

the stationary internal 

combustion engine exhaust.

(3) Method 2 or 19 of 40 

CFR part 60.

iv. If necessary, measure 

moisture content of the 

stationary internal combustion engine exhaust 

at the sampling port location; and.

(4) Method 4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, 

Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D 6348–03 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 60.17).

(c) Measurements to determine moisture must 

be made at the same 

time as the measurement for NOX concentration. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 60—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each Complying with the 

requirement to You must Using According to the following requirements 

v. Measure NOX at the exhaust of the stationary 

internal combustion engine.

(5) Method 7E of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, 

Method D6522–00 

(2005) a, Method 320 of 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D 6348– 

03 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).

(d) Results of this test consist of the average of 

the three 1-hour or 

longer runs. 

b. limit the concentration of 

CO in the stationary SI 

internal combustion engine exhaust.

i. Select the sampling port 

location and the number 

of traverse points.

(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A or ASTM Method 

D6522–00 (2005) a.

(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 internal combustion engine exhaust at 

the sampling port location.

(2) Method 3, 3A, or 3Bb

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or ASTM Method D6522–00 (2005) a.

(b) Measurements to determine O2 concentration 

must be made at the 

same time as the measurements for CO concentration. 

iii. If necessary, determine 

the exhaust flowrate of 

the stationary internal 

combustion engine exhaust.

(3) Method 2 or 19 of 40 

CFR part 60.

iv. If necessary, measure 

moisture content of the 

stationary internal combustion engine exhaust 

at the sampling port location; and.

(4) Method 4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, 

Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D 6348–03 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 60.17).

(c) Measurements to determine moisture must 

be made at the same 

time as the measurement for CO concentration. 

v. Measure CO at the exhaust of the stationary 

internal combustion engine.

(5) 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 D 

6348–03 (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§ 60.17).

(d) Results of this test consist of the average of 

the three 1-hour or 

longer runs. 

c. limit the concentration of 

VOC in the stationary SI 

internal combustion engine exhaust.

i. Select the sampling port 

location and the number 

of traverse points.

(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A.

(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 internal combustion engine exhaust at 

the sampling port location.

(2) Method 3, 3A, or 3Bb

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or ASTM Method D6522–00 

(2005) a.

(b) Measurements to determine O2 concentration 

must be made at the 

same time as the measurements for VOC concentration. 

iii. If necessary, determine 

the exhaust flowrate of 

the stationary internal 

combustion engine exhaust.

(3) Method 2 or 19 of 40 

CFR part 60.

iv. If necessary, measure 

moisture content of the 

stationary internal combustion engine exhaust 

at the sampling port location; and.

(4) Method 4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, 

Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D 6348–03 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 60.17).

(c) Measurements to determine moisture must 

be made at the same 

time as the measurement for VOC concentration. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33835 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 60—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each Complying with the 

requirement to You must Using According to the following requirements 

v. Measure VOC at the exhaust of the stationary 

internal combustion engine.

(5) Methods 25A and 18 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 25A with 

the use of a methane 

cutter as described in 40 

CFR 1065.265, Method 

18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix Ac d, Method 

320 of 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, or ASTM D 

6348–03 (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§ 60.17).

(d) Results of this test consist of the average of 

the three 1-hour or 

longer runs. 

aASTM D6522–00 is incorporated by reference; see 40 CFR 60.17. Also, you may petition the Administrator for approval to use alternative 

methods for portable analyzer. bYou may use ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, for measuring the O2 content of the exhaust gas as an alternative to 

EPA Method 3B. cYou may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, provided that you conduct an adequate presurvey test prior to the emissions 

test, such as the one described in OTM 11 on EPA’s Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm11.pdf). dYou may use ASTM D6420–99 (2004), Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry as an alternative to EPA Method 18 for measuring total nonmethane organic. 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

8. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart ZZZZ—[Amended] 

9. Section 63.6585 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(f) The emergency stationary RICE 

listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of 

this section are not subject to this 

subpart. The stationary RICE must meet 

the definition of an emergency 

stationary RICE in § 63.6675, which 

includes operating according to the 

provisions specified in § 63.6640(f). 

(1) Existing residential emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions. 

(2) Existing commercial emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions. 

(3) Existing institutional emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions. 

§ 63.6590 [Amended] 

10. Section 63.6590 is amended by 

removing paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) through 

(viii). 

11. 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, operating 

limitations and other requirements 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, operating limitations, and 

other requirements no later than May 3, 

2013. If you have an existing stationary 

SI 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 SI RICE located at an 

area source of HAP emissions, you must 

comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and 

other requirements no later than 

October 19, 2013. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.6602 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6602 What emission limitations and 

other requirements must I meet if I own or 

operate an existing stationary 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 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 and other 

requirements 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. 

13. Section 63.6603 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (b); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (c) through (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.6603 What emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other 

requirements must I meet if I own or 

operate an existing stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions? 

* * * * * 

(b) If you own or operate an existing 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE with 

a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP that meets 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you do not have to meet the 

numerical CO emission limitations 

specified in Table 2d of this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE with a site rating of more than 300 

HP located at an area source of HAP that 

meet either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 

this section must meet the management 

practices that are shown for stationary 

non-emergency CI RICE with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in 

Table 2d of this subpart. 

(1) The area source is located in an 

area of Alaska that is not accessible by 

the Federal Aid Highway System 

(FAHS). 

(2) The stationary RICE is located at 

an area source that meets paragraphs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this 

section. 

(i) The only connection to the FAHS 

is through the Alaska Marine Highway 

System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE 

operation is within an isolated grid in 

Alaska that is not connected to the 

statewide electrical grid referred to as 

the Alaska Railbelt Grid. 

(ii) At least 10 percent of the power 

generated by the stationary RICE on an 

annual basis is used for residential 

purposes. 

(iii) The generating capacity of the 

area source is less than 12 megawatts, or 

the stationary RICE is used exclusively 

for backup power for renewable energy 

and is used less than 500 hrs per year 

on a 10 year rolling average. 

(c) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency CI RICE with a site 

rating of more than 300 HP located at an 

area source of HAP emissions that is 

certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission 

standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 

and that is subject to an enforceable 

state or local standard that requires the 

engine to be replaced no later than June 

1, 2018, you may until January 1, 2015, 

or 12 years after the installation date of 

the engine (whichever is later), but not 

later than June 1, 2018, choose to 

comply with the management practices 

that are shown for stationary nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d 

of this subpart instead of the applicable 

emission limitations in Table 2d, 

operating limitations in Table 2b, and 

crankcase ventilation system 

requirements in § 63.6625(g). You must 

comply with the emission limitations in 

Table 2d and operating limitations in 

Table 2b that apply for non-emergency 

CI RICE with a site rating of more than 

300 HP located at an area source of HAP 

emissions by January 1, 2015, or 12 

years after the installation date of the 

engine (whichever is later), but not later 

than June 1, 2018. You must also 

comply with the crankcase ventilation 

system requirements in § 63.6625(g) by 

January 1, 2015, or 12 years after the 

installation date of the engine 

(whichever is later), but not later than 

June 1, 2018. 

(d) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency CI RICE with a site 

rating of more than 300 HP located at an 

area source of HAP emissions that is 

certified to the Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) emission standards in 

Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112, you may 

comply with the requirements under 

this part by meeting the requirements 

for Tier 3 engines (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) in 40 CFR part 60 

subpart IIII instead of the emission 

limitations and other requirements that 

would otherwise apply under this part 

for existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

(e) An existing non-emergency SI 

4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a 

site rating of more than 500 HP located 

at area sources of HAP must meet the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§ 63.6675 on the initial compliance date 

for the engine, October 19, 2013, in 

order to be considered a remote 

stationary RICE under this subpart. 

Owners and operators of existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

HP located at area sources of HAP that 

meet the definition of remote stationary 

RICE in § 63.6675 of this subpart as of 

October 19, 2013 must evaluate the 

status of their stationary RICE every 12 

months. Owners and operators must 

keep records of the initial and annual 

evaluation of the status of the engine. If 

the evaluation indicates that the 

stationary RICE no longer meets the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§ 63.6675 of this subpart, the owner or 

operator must comply with all of the 

requirements for existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

HP located at area sources of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE within 

one year of the evaluation. 

14. Section 63.6604 is revised 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, non-black start 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 non-emergency CI stationary 

RICE located in Guam, American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, or at area 

sources in areas of Alaska that meet 

either § 63.6603(b)(1) or § 63.6603(b)(2) 

are exempt from the requirements of 

this section. 

15. Section 63.6605 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) 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, operating 

limitations, and other requirements in 

this subpart that apply to you at all 

times. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.6620 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (e) 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. The test must be 

conducted at any load condition within 

plus or minus 10 percent of 100 percent 

load for the stationary RICE listed in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of greater than 

500 brake HP located at a major source 

of HAP emissions. 

(2) New non-emergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

greater than or equal to 250 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

(3) New non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

greater than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(4) New non-emergency CI stationary 

RICE with a site rating of greater than 

500 brake HP located at a major source 

of HAP emissions. 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) You must use Equation 1 of this 

section to 

determine compliance with the percent 

reduction requirement: 

Where: 

Ci = concentration of CO, THC, or 

formaldehyde at the control device inlet, 

Co = concentration of CO, THC, or 

formaldehyde at the control device 

outlet, and 

R = percent reduction of CO, THC, or 

formaldehyde emissions. 

(2) You must normalize the carbon 

monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons 

(THC), or formaldehyde concentrations 

at the inlet and outlet of the control 

device to a dry basis and to 15 percent 

oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon 

dioxide (CO2). If pollutant 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07JN12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33837 

concentrations are to be corrected to 15 

percent oxygen and CO2 concentration 

is measured in lieu of oxygen 

concentration measurement, a CO2

correction factor is needed. Calculate 

the CO2 correction factor as described in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value 

for the fuel burned during the test using 

values obtained from Method 19, 

Section 5.2, and the following equation: 

Where: 

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen 

volume to the ultimate CO2 volume 

produced by the fuel at zero percent 

excess air. 

0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, 

percent/100. 

Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas 

to the gross calorific value of the fuel 

from Method 19, dsm3/J (dscf/106 Btu). 

Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to 

the gross calorific value of the fuel from 

Method 19, dsm3/J (dscf/106 Btu) 

(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor 

for correcting 

measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, 

as follows: 

Where: 

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent. 

5.9 = 20.9 percent O2—15 percent O2, the 

defined O2 correction value, percent. 

(iii) Calculate the CO, THC, and 

formaldehyde gas concentrations 

adjusted to 15 percent O2 using CO2 as 

follows: 

Where: 

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration 

measured, dry basis, percent. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.6625 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b); 

c. Revising paragraph (e)(6); and 

d. Revising paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6625 What are my monitoring, 

installation, collection, operation, and 

maintenance requirements? 

(a) If you elect to install a CEMS as 

specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you 

must install, operate, and maintain a 

CEMS to monitor CO and either oxygen 

or CO2 according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section. If you are meeting a 

requirement to reduce CO emissions, 

the CEMS must be installed at both the 

inlet and outlet of the control device. If 

you are meeting a requirement to limit 

the concentration of CO, the CEMS must 

be installed at the outlet of the control 

device. * * * 

* * * * * 

(b) If you are required to install a 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 

of this subpart, you must install, 

operate, and maintain each CPMS 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(6) An existing non-emergency, nonblack start stationary RICE located at an 

area source of HAP emissions which 

combusts landfill or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; 

* * * * * 

(g) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency, non-black start 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 that meet either § 63.6603(b)(1) 

or § 63.6603(b)(2) do not have to meet 

the requirements of paragraph (g) of 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. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.6630 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Adding paragraph (d); and 

d. Adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other 

requirements? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

limitation, operating limitation, and 

other requirement that applies to you 

according to Table 5 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(d) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary 

RICE complying with the requirement to 

reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more can demonstrate initial 

compliance with the formaldehyde 

emission limit by testing for THC 

instead of formaldehyde. The testing 

must be conducted according to the 

requirements in Table 4 of this subpart. 

The average reduction of emissions of 

THC determined from the performance 

test must be equal to or greater than 30 

percent. 

(e) The initial compliance 

demonstration required for existing nonemergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that 

are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year must be conducted 

according to the following requirements: 

(1) The compliance demonstration 

must consist of at least three test runs. 

(2) Each test run must be of at least 

15 minute duration, except that each 

test conducted using the method in 

appendix A to this subpart must consist 

of at least one measurement cycle and 

include at least 2 minutes of test data 

phase measurement. 

(3) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the CO concentration 

or CO percent reduction requirement, 

you must measure CO emissions using 

one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or 

using appendix A to this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the THC percent 

reduction requirement, you must 

measure THC emissions using Method 

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

(5) You must measure O2 using one of 

the O2 measurement methods specified 

in Table 4 of this subpart. 

Measurements to determine O2

concentration must be made at the same 

time as the measurements for CO or 

THC concentration. 

(6) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the CO or THC percent 

reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO or THC emissions and O2

emissions simultaneously at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device. 

19. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

a. Amending the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07JN12.001</GPH> EP07JN12.002</GPH> EP07JN12.003</GPH>
33838 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

d. Revising paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6640 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation, operating limitation, and 

other requirements 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. 

* * * * * 

(c) The annual compliance 

demonstration required for existing nonemergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that 

are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year must be conducted 

according to the following requirements: 

(1) The compliance demonstration 

must consist of at least one test run. 

(2) Each test run must be of at least 

15 minute duration, except that each 

test conducted using the method in 

appendix A to this subpart must consist 

of at least one measurement cycle and 

include at least 2 minutes of test data 

phase measurement. 

(3) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the CO concentration 

or CO percent reduction requirement, 

you must measure CO emissions using 

one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or 

using appendix A to this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the THC percent 

reduction requirement, you must 

measure THC emissions using Method 

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

(5) You must measure O2 using one of 

the O2 measurement methods specified 

in Table 4 of this subpart. 

Measurements to determine O2

concentration must be made at the same 

time as the measurements for CO or 

THC concentration. 

(6) If you are demonstrating 

compliance with the CO or THC percent 

reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO or THC emissions and O2

emissions simultaneously at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device. 

(7) If the results of the annual 

compliance demonstration show that 

the emissions exceed the levels 

specified in Table 6 of this subpart, the 

stationary RICE must be shut down as 

soon as safely possible, and appropriate 

corrective action must be taken (e.g., 

repairs, catalyst cleaning, catalyst 

replacement). The stationary RICE must 

be retested within 7 days of being 

restarted and the emissions must meet 

the levels specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart. If the retest shows that the 

emissions continue to exceed the 

specified levels, the stationary RICE 

must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the stationary RICE 

may not operate, except for purposes of 

startup and testing, until the owner/ 

operator demonstrates through testing 

that the emissions do not exceed the 

levels specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an 

emergency stationary RICE, you must 

operate the emergency stationary RICE 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 

section. In order for the engine to be 

considered an emergency stationary 

RICE under this subpart, any operation 

other than emergency operation, 

maintenance and testing, emergency 

demand response, and operation in nonemergency situations for 50 hours per 

year, as described in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (4) of this section, is prohibited. 

If you do not operate the engine 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 

section, the engine will not be 

considered an emergency engine under 

this subpart and must meet all 

requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on nonemergency operation will be considered 

a non-emergency engine and subject to 

the requirements for non-emergency 

engines for the remaining life of the 

engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use 

of emergency stationary RICE in 

emergency situations. 

(2) You may operate your emergency 

stationary RICE for any combination of 

the purposes specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section for a 

maximum of 100 hours per calendar 

year. Any operation for non-emergency 

situations as allowed by paragraphs 

(f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year 

allowed by this paragraph (f)(2). 

(i) Emergency stationary RICE may be 

operated for maintenance checks and 

readiness testing, provided that the tests 

are recommended by federal, state or 

local government, the manufacturer, the 

vendor, the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator, or 

the insurance company associated with 

the engine. 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 calendar year. 

(ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be 

operated for emergency demand 

response for periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an 

Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP– 

002–3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

(iii) Emergency stationary RICE may 

be operated for periods where there is 

a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 

percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. 

(3) Emergency stationary RICE located 

at major sources of HAP may be 

operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 

50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 

hours per calendar year for maintenance 

and testing and emergency demand 

response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section. The 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be 

used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, 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. 

(4) Existing emergency stationary 

RICE located at area sources of HAP 

may be operated for up to 50 hours per 

calendar year in non-emergency 

situations. The 50 hours of operation in 

non-emergency situations are counted 

as part of the 100 hours per calendar 

year for maintenance and testing and 

emergency demand response provided 

in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

(i) Prior to April 16, 2017, the 50 

hours per year for non-emergency 

situations can be used for peak shaving 

or non-emergency demand response to 

generate income for a facility, or to 

otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another 

entity if engines is operated as part of 

a peak shaving (load management 

program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is 

provided only to the facility itself or to 

support the local distribution system. 

(ii) On or after April 16, 2017, the 50 

hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak 

shaving or non-emergency demand 

response, or to otherwise supply power 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33839 

as part of a financial arrangement with 

another entity. 

* * * * * 

20. Section 63.6645 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6645 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

* * * * * 

(i) If you own or operate an existing 

non-emergency CI RICE with a site 

rating of more than 300 HP located at an 

area source of HAP emissions that is 

certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission 

standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 

and subject to an enforceable state or 

local standard requiring engine 

replacement and you intend to meet 

management practices rather than 

emission limits, as specified in 

§ 63.6603(c), you must submit a 

notification by March 3, 2013, stating 

that you intend to use the provision in 

§ 63.6603(c) and identifying the state or 

local regulation that the engine is 

subject to. 

21. Section 63.6675 is amended by: 

a. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition of Alaska Railbelt Grid; 

b. Revising the definition of 

Emergency stationary RICE; and 

c. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition of Remote stationary RICE to 

read as follows. 

§ 63.6675 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Alaska Railbelt Grid means the 

service areas of the six regulated public 

utilities that extend from Fairbanks to 

Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. 

These utilities are Golden Valley 

Electric Association; Chugach Electric 

Association; Matanuska Electric 

Association; Homer Electric 

Association; Anchorage Municipal Light 

& Power; and the City of Seward Electric 

System. 

* * * * * 

Emergency stationary RICE means any 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engine that meets all of the 

criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 

this definition. All emergency stationary 

RICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.6640(f) in 

order to be considered emergency 

stationary RICE. If the engine does not 

comply with the requirements specified 

in § 63.6640(f), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary RICE 

under this subpart. 

(1) The stationary RICE is operated to 

provide electrical power or mechanical 

work during an emergency situation. 

Examples include stationary RICE used 

to produce power for critical networks 

or equipment (including power 

supplied to portions of a facility) when 

electric power from the local utility (or 

the normal power source, if the facility 

runs on its own power production) is 

interrupted, or stationary RICE used to 

pump water in the case of fire or flood, 

etc. 

(2) The stationary RICE is operated 

under limited circumstances for 

situations not included in paragraph (1) 

of this definition, as specified in 

§ 63.6640(f). 

(3) The stationary RICE operates as 

part of a financial arrangement with 

another entity in situations not included 

in paragraph (1) of this definition only 

as allowed in § 63.6640(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) 

and § 63.6640(f)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Remote stationary RICE means 

stationary RICE meeting any of the 

following criteria: 

(1) Stationary RICE located in an 

offshore area that is beyond the line of 

ordinary low water along that portion of 

the coast of the United States that is in 

direct contact with the open seas and 

beyond the line marking the seaward 

limit of inland waters. 

(2) Stationary RICE located on a 

pipeline segment that meets both of the 

criteria in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of 

this definition. 

(i) A pipeline segment with 10 or 

fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy within 220 yards (200 

meters) on either side of the centerline 

of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 

kilometers) length of pipeline. Each 

separate dwelling unit in a multiple 

dwelling unit building is counted as a 

separate building intended for human 

occupancy. 

(ii) The pipeline segment does not lie 

within 100 yards (91 meters) of either a 

building or a small, well-defined 

outside area (such as a playground, 

recreation area, outdoor theater, or other 

place of public assembly) that is 

occupied by 20 or more persons on at 

least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period. The days and weeks 

need not be consecutive. The building 

or area is considered occupied for a full 

day if it is occupied for any portion of 

the day. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph 

(2), the term pipeline segment means all 

parts of those physical facilities through 

which gas moves in transportation, 

including but not limited to pipe, 

valves, and other appurtenance attached 

to pipe, compressor units, metering 

stations, regulator stations, delivery 

stations, holders, and fabricated 

assemblies. Stationary RICE located 

within 50 yards (46 m) of the pipeline 

segment providing power for equipment 

on a pipeline segment are part of the 

pipeline segment. Transportation of gas 

means the gathering, transmission, or 

distribution of gas by pipeline, or the 

storage of gas. A building is intended for 

human occupancy if its primary use is 

for a purpose involving the presence of 

humans. 

(3) Stationary RICE that are not 

located on gas pipelines and that have 

5 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy within a 0.25 mile radius 

around the engine. A building is 

intended for human occupancy if its 

primary use is for a purpose involving 

the presence of humans. 

* * * * * 

22. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6603, 

63.6630 and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following operating limitations 

for existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source of HAP emissions: 

TABLE 1b TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING, NEW, AND RECONSTRUCTED SI 

4SRB STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS

For each . . . You must meet the following operating limitation, except during periods 

of startup . . . 

1. existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if applicable) and using NSCR; or 

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 

measured during the initial performance test; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33840 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1b TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING, NEW, AND RECONSTRUCTED SI 

4SRB STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS—Continued 

For each . . . You must meet the following operating limitation, except during periods 

of startup . . . 

existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and using 

NSCR; 

b. maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that 

the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 750°F and 

less than or equal to 1250° F.1

2. existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if applicable) and not using NSCR; or 

Comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator. 

existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and not using 

NSCR.

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

23. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6601, 

63.6603, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you 

must comply with the following 

operating limitations for new and 

reconstructed 2SLB and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source 

of HAP emissions; new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions; and existing CI 

stationary RICE >500 HP: 

TABLE 2b TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED 2SLB AND CI STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS, NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED 4SLB 

STATIONARY RICE ≥250 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS, EXISTING CI STATIONARY RICE 

>500 HP, AND EXISTING 4SLB STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT AN AREA SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS

For each . . . You must meet the following operating limitation, except during periods 

of startup . . . 

1. New and reconstructed 2SLB and CI stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions and new and reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst; and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and CI stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source of HAP emissions and new and reconstructed 

4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions 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. Existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP complying with the requirement 

to limit or reduce the concentration of CO 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 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

3. New and reconstructed 2SLB and CI stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions and new and reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and not using an oxidation catalyst; and 

Comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator. 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and CI stationary RICE >500 HP located 

at a major source of HAP emissions and new and reconstructed 

4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions complying with the requirement to limit the concentration 

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

existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP complying with the requirement to 

limit or reduce the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust and not using an oxidation catalyst.

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33841 

24. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6602, and 

63.6640, you must comply with the 

following requirements for existing 

compression ignition stationary RICE 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions and existing spark ignition 

stationary RICE ≤500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions: 

TABLE 2c TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING COMPRESSION IGNITION STATIONARY RICE 

LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS AND EXISTING SPARK IGNITION STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS

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

1. Emergency stationary CI 

RICE and black start stationary CI RICE.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, and replace as necessary; 

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

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace 

as necessary.3

2. Non-Emergency, nonblack start stationary CI 

RICE <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, and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace 

as necessary.3

3. Non-Emergency, nonblack start CI stationary 

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, nonblack start CI stationary 

RICE 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, nonblack start stationary CI 

RICE >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. 

6. Emergency stationary SI 

RICE and black start stationary SI RICE.1

a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 2

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,000 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace 

as necessary.3

7. Non-Emergency, nonblack start stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP that are 

not 2SLB stationary RICE. 

a. Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 2

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.3

8. Non-Emergency, nonblack start 2SLB stationary SI RICE <100 HP. a. Change oil and filter every 4,320 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 2

b. Inspect spark plugs every 4,320 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 4,320 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.3

9. Non-emergency, nonblack start 2SLB stationary RICE 100≤HP≤500 Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 225 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2.


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2c TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING COMPRESSION IGNITION STATIONARY RICE 

LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS AND EXISTING SPARK IGNITION STATIONARY RICE >500 HP LOCATED AT A MAJOR SOURCE OF HAP EMISSIONS—Continued 

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

10. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SLB stationary RICE 100≤HP≤500 Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 47 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2.

11. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SRB stationary RICE 100≤HP≤500 Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 10.3 ppmvd or less at 15 percent 

O2.

12. Non-emergency, nonblack start stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 which combusts landfill or digester 

gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross 

heat input on an annual 

basis 

Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 177 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2.

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. 

25. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in §§ 63.6603 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

requirements for existing stationary 

RICE located at area sources of HAP 

emissions: 

TABLE 2d TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE LOCATED AT AREA

SOURCES OF HAP EMISSIONS

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

1. Non-Emergency, nonblack start CI stationary 

RICE ≤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, and replace as necessary; and 

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. 

2. Non-Emergency, nonblack start CI stationary 

RICE 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, nonblack start CI stationary 

RICE >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 stationary CI 

RICE and black start stationary CI RICE.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 replace as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace 

as necessary. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33843 

TABLE 2d TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE LOCATED AT AREA

SOURCES OF HAP EMISSIONS—Continued 

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

5. Emergency stationary SI 

RICE; black start stationary SI RICE; nonemergency, non-black 

start 4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that operate 24 hours or less per 

calendar year; non-emergency, non-black start 

4SRB stationary RICE 

>500 HP that operate 24 

hours or less per calendar 

year.2

a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 1

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,000 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace 

as necessary. 

6. Non-emergency, nonblack start 2SLB stationary RICE. a. Change oil and filter every 4,320 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 1

b. Inspect spark plugs every 4,320 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 4,320 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary. 

7. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SLB stationary RICE ≤500 HP; 

non-emergency, non-black 

start 4SLB remote stationary RICE >500 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 1

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary. 

8. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

that are not remote stationary RICE and that operate more than 24 hours 

per calendar year. 

Install an oxidation catalyst to reduce HAP emissions 

from the stationary RICE.

9. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SRB stationary RICE ≤500 HP; 

non-emergency, non-black 

start 4SRB remote stationary RICE >500 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 1

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary. 

10. Non-emergency, nonblack start 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

that are not remote stationary RICE and that operate more than 24 hours 

per calendar year. 

Install NSCR to reduce HAP emissions from the stationary RICE.

11. Non-emergency, nonblack start stationary RICE 

which combusts landfill or 

digester gas equivalent to 

10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis. 

a. Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first; 1

b. Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary; and 

c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

26. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in §§ 63.6615 and 63.6620, 

you must comply with the following 

subsequent performance test 

requirements: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE TESTS

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

1. New or reconstructed 

2SLB stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at major 

sources; new or reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at 

major sources; and new or 

reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located at major sources. 

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

2. 4SRB stationary RICE 

≥5,000 HP located at 

major sources. 

Reduce formaldehyde emissions .................................... Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually1. 

3. Stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at major sources 

and new or reconstructed 

4SLB stationary RICE 250 

≤ HP ≤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 >500 HP 

that are not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

Limit or reduce CO emissions and not using a CEMS .. Conduct subsequent performance tests every 8,760 hrs 

or 3 years, whichever comes first. 

5. Existing non-emergency, 

non-black start CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

that are limited use stationary RICE. 

Limit or reduce CO emissions and not using a CEMS ... Conduct subsequent performance tests every 8,760 hrs 

or 5 years, whichever comes first. 

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

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

27. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

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) Method 3 or 3A or 3B 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM 

Method D6522–00 

(2005) a (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14).

(a) Measurements to determine O2 must be 

made at the same time 

as the measurements 

for CO concentration. 

ii. Measure the CO at the 

inlet and the outlet of 

the control device.

(1) ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) a,b (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§ 63.14) or Method 10 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

(a) The CO concentration 

must be at 15 percent 

O2, dry basis. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33845 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . Complying with the 

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

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 or THC 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 or THC 

concentration. 

iv. If demonstrating compliance with the formaldehyde percent reduction 

requirement, measure 

formalde-hyde at the 

inlet and the outlet of 

the control device.

(1) Method 320 or 323 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. If demonstrating compliance with the THC percent reduction requirement, measure THC at 

the inlet and the outlet 

of the control device.

(1) Method 25A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A.

(a) THC 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 

formalde-hyde 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 or CO 

concentration. 

iii. Measure moisture content of the station-ary 

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 or CO 

concentration. 

iv. Measure formalde-hyde 

at the exhaust of the 

station-ary RICE; or 

(1) Method 320 or 323 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . Complying with the 

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

v. measure CO at the exhaust of the station-ary 

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 

or longer runs. 

aYou 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. 

28. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

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: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING LIMITATIONS

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

. . . 

1. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at 

a major source of HAP, and existing nonemergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at an area source of HAP. 

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. Non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 

HP located at an area source of HAP. 

a. Limit the concentration of CO, using oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.i. The average CO concentration determined 

from the initial performance test is less than 

or equal to the CO emission limitation; 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. 

3. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at 

a major source of HAP, and existing nonemergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at an area source of HAP. 

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. 

4. Non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 

HP located at an area source of HAP. 

a. Limit the concentration of CO, and not 

using oxidation catalyst.

i. The average CO concentration determined 

from the initial performance test is less than 

or equal to the CO 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33847 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING

LIMITATIONS—Continued 

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

. . . 

5. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at 

a major source of HAP, and existing nonemergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at an area source of HAP. 

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. 

6. Non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE >500 

HP located at an area source of HAP. 

a. Limit the concentration of CO, and using a 

CEMS.

i. You have installed a CEMS to continuously 

monitor CO and either O2 or CO2 at the 

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 concentration of CO calculated using § 63.6620 is less than or 

equal to the CO emission limitation. The initial test comprises the first 4-hour period 

after successful validation of the CEMS. 

Compliance is based on the average concentration measured during the 4-hour period. 

7. Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 

HP located at a major source of HAP. 

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, or the average reduction of emissions 

of THC determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than 30 percent; 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. 

8. Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 

HP located at a major source of HAP. 

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. 

9. New or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP, and existing non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING

LIMITATIONS—Continued 

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. 

10. New or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP, and existing non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP. 

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. 

11. Existing non-emergency stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary 

CI RICE 300≤HP≤500 located at an area 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 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. 

12. Existing non-emergency stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary 

CI RICE 300≤HP≤500 located at an area 

source of HAP. 

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. 

13. Existing non-emergency 4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at an area source of 

HAP that are not remote stationary RICE and 

that are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year. 

a. Install an oxidation catalyst ......................... i. You have conducted an initial compliance 

demonstration as specified in § 63.6630(e) 

to show that the average reduction of emissions of CO is 93 percent or more, or the 

average CO concentration is less than or 

equal to 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b), or you 

have installed equipment to automatically 

shut down the engine if the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 1350 °F. 

14. Existing non-emergency 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at an area source of 

HAP that are not remote stationary RICE and 

that are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year. 

a. Install NSCR ................................................ i. You have conducted an initial compliance 

demonstration as specified in § 63.6630(e) 

to show that the average reduction of emissions of CO is 75 percent or more, or the 

average reduction of emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more. 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b), or you 

have installed equipment to automatically 

shut down the engine if the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 1250 °F. 

29. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 63.6640, you must 

continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations and 

work or management practices as 

required by the following: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33849 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS, OPERATING

LIMITATIONS, WORK PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

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

by . . . 

1. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, and new 

or reconstructed non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP. 

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. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, and new 

or reconstructed non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP. 

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. New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, new or reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 HP 

located at a major source of HAP, new or reconstructed non-emergency stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source of 

HAP, and existing non-emergency stationary 

CI RICE >500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO emissions or limit the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust, 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 or concentration 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, or 

that the emission remain at or below the 

CO concentration limit; and 

iii. Conducting an annual RATA of your CEMS 

using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data 

quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. 

4. Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 

HP located at a major source of HAP. 

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. Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE >500 

HP located at a major source of HAP. 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS, OPERATING

LIMITATIONS, WORK PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Continued 

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

by . . . 

6. Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE with 

a brake HP ≥5,000 located at a major source 

of HAP. 

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

formaldehyde to demonstrate that the required formaldehyde percent reduction is 

achieved, or to demonstrate that the average reduction of emissions of THC determined from the performance test is equal to 

or greater than 30 percent.a

7. New or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP and new or reconstructed 

non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP. 

a. 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. New or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP and new or reconstructed 

non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located at a major source of 

HAP. 

a. 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 emergency and black start stationary RICE ≤500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, existing non-emergency stationary RICE <100 HP located at a major 

source of HAP, existing emergency and black 

start stationary RICE located at an area 

source of HAP, existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE ≤300 HP located at an area 

source of HAP, existing non-emergency 

2SLB stationary RICE located at an area 

source of HAP, existing non-emergency stationary SI RICE located at an area source of 

HAP which combusts landfill or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross 

heat input on an annual basis, existing nonemergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at an area source of HAP, 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at an area 

source of HAP that operate 24 hours or less 

per calendar year, and existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE >500 

HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are remote stationary RICE. 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33851 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS, OPERATING

LIMITATIONS, WORK PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Continued 

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

by . . . 

10. Existing stationary CI RICE >500 HP that 

are not limited use stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO emissions, or limit the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust, and using oxidation catalyst.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; 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. 

11. Existing stationary CI RICE >500 HP that 

are not limited use stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO emissions, or limit the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust, and not using oxidation catalyst.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; 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. 

12. Existing limited use CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO emissions or limit the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust, and using an oxidation catalyst.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; 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. 

13. Existing limited use CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO emissions or limit the concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust, and not using an oxidation catalyst.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; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS, OPERATING

LIMITATIONS, WORK PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Continued 

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

by . . . 

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. 

14. Existing non-emergency 4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at an area source of 

HAP that are not remote stationary RICE and 

that are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year. 

a. Install an oxidation catalyst ......................... i. Conducting annual compliance demonstrations as specified in § 63.6640(c) to show 

that the average reduction of emissions of 

CO is 93 percent or more, or the average 

CO concentration is less than or equal to 

47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2; and either 

ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

data according to § 63.6625(b), reducing 

these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; or 

iii. Immediately shutting down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet temperature exceeds 1350 

°F. 

15. Existing non-emergency 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at an area source of 

HAP that are not remote stationary RICE and 

that are operated more than 24 hours per 

calendar year. 

a. Install NSCR ................................................ i. Conducting annual compliance demonstrations as specified in § 63.6640(c) to show 

that the average reduction of emissions of 

CO is 75 percent or more, or the average 

reduction of emissions of THC is 30 percent 

or more; and either 

ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

data according to § 63.6625(b), reducing 

these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; or 

iii. Immediately shutting down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet temperature exceeds 1250 

°F. 

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. 

30. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

As stated in § 63.6650, you must 

comply with the following requirements 

for reports: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33853 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

For each . . . You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. Existing non-emergency, nonblack start stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located at a major 

source of HAP; existing nonemergency, non-black start stationary CI RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP; 

existing non-emergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major source of HAP; 

existing non-emergency, nonblack start stationary CI RICE 

>300 HP located at an area 

source of HAP; new or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE >500 HP located at 

a major source of HAP; and new 

or reconstructed non-emergency 

4SLB stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located at a major 

source of HAP.

Compliance report ........................ a. If there are no deviations from 

any emission limitations or operating limitations that apply to 

you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the 

emission limitations or operating limitations during the reporting period. If there were no 

periods during which the CMS, 

including CEMS and CPMS, 

was out-of-control, as specified 

in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that 

there were not periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period; 

or.

i. Semiannually according to the 

requirements in 

§ 63.6650(b)(1)–(5) for engines 

that are not limited use stationary 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 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. New or reconstructed non-emergency stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas 

equivalent to 10 percent or more 

of the gross heat input on an annual basis.

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. 

3. Existing non-emergency, nonblack start 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at 

an area source of HAP that are 

not remote stationary RICE and 

that operate more than 24 hours 

per calendar year.

Compliance report ........................ a. The results of the annual compliance demonstration, if conducted during the reporting period. i. Semiannually according to the 

requirements in 

§ 63.6650(b)(1)–(5). 

31. Appendix A to Subpart ZZZZ of 

Part 63 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix A 

Protocol for Using an Electrochemical 

Analyzer to Determine Oxygen and Carbon 

Monoxide Concentrations from Certain 

Engines 

1.0 Scope and Application. What is this 

Protocol? 

This protocol is a procedure for using 

portable electrochemical (EC) cells for 

measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen 

(O2) concentrations in controlled and 

uncontrolled emissions from existing 

stationary 4-stroke lean burn and 4-stroke 

rich burn reciprocating internal combustion 

engines as specified in the applicable rule. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1.1 Analytes. What does this protocol 

determine? 

This protocol measures the engine exhaust 

gas concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) 

and oxygen (O2). 

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity 

Carbon monoxide (CO) ...........................

Oxygen (O2) .............................................

630–08–0 

7782–44–7 

Minimum detectable limit should be 2 percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

1.2 Applicability. When is this protocol 

acceptable? 

This protocol is applicable to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ. Because of inherent cross 

sensitivities of EC cells, you must not apply 

this protocol to other emissions sources 

without specific instruction to that effect. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. How good must 

my collected data be? 

Refer to Section 13 to verify and document 

acceptable analyzer performance. 

1.4 Range. What is the targeted analytical 

range for this protocol? 

The measurement system and EC cell 

design(s) conforming to this protocol will 

determine the analytical range for each gas 

component. The nominal ranges are defined 

by choosing up-scale calibration gas 

concentrations near the maximum 

anticipated flue gas concentrations for CO 

and O2, or no more than twice the permitted 

CO level. 

1.5 Sensitivity. What minimum detectable 

limit will this protocol yield for a particular 

gas component? 

The minimum detectable limit depends on 

the nominal range and resolution of the 

specific EC cell used, and the signal to noise 

ratio of the measurement system. The 

minimum detectable limit should be 2 

percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

2.0 Summary of Protocol 

In this protocol, a gas sample is extracted 

from an engine exhaust system and then 

conveyed to a portable EC analyzer for 

measurement of CO and O2 gas 

concentrations. This method provides 

measurement system performance 

specifications and sampling protocols to 

ensure reliable data. You may use additions 

to, or modifications of vendor supplied 

measurement systems (e.g., heated or 

unheated sample lines, thermocouples, flow 

meters, selective gas scrubbers, etc.) to meet 

the design specifications of this protocol. Do 

not make changes to the measurement system 

from the as-verified configuration (Section 

3.12). 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Measurement System. The total 

equipment required for the measurement of 

CO and O2 concentrations. The measurement 

system consists of the following major 

subsystems: 

3.1.1 Data Recorder. A strip chart 

recorder, computer or digital recorder for 

logging measurement data from the analyzer 

output. You may record measurement data 

from the digital data display manually or 

electronically. 

3.1.2 Electrochemical (EC) Cell. A device, 

similar to a fuel cell, used to sense the 

presence of a specific analyte and generate an 

electrical current output proportional to the 

analyte concentration. 

3.1.3 Interference Gas Scrubber. A device 

used to remove or neutralize chemical 

compounds that may interfere with the 

selective operation of an EC cell. 

3.1.4 Moisture Removal System. Any 

device used to reduce the concentration of 

moisture in the sample stream so as to 

protect the EC cells from the damaging effects 

of condensation and to minimize errors in 

measurements caused by the scrubbing of 

soluble gases. 

3.1.5 Sample Interface. The portion of the 

system used for one or more of the following: 

sample acquisition; sample transport; sample 

conditioning or protection of the EC cell from 

any degrading effects of the engine exhaust 

effluent; removal of particulate matter and 

condensed moisture. 

3.2 Nominal Range. The range of analyte 

concentrations over which each EC cell is 

operated (normally 25 percent to 150 percent 

of up-scale calibration gas value). Several 

nominal ranges can be used for any given cell 

so long as the calibration and repeatability 

checks for that range remain within 

specifications. 

3.3 Calibration Gas. A vendor certified 

concentration of a specific analyte in an 

appropriate balance gas. 

3.4 Zero Calibration Error. The analyte 

concentration output exhibited by the EC cell 

in response to zero-level calibration gas. 

3.5 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean 

of the difference between the analyte 

concentration exhibited by the EC cell and 

the certified concentration of the up-scale 

calibration gas. 

3.6 Interference Check. A procedure for 

quantifying analytical interference from 

components in the engine exhaust gas other 

than the targeted analytes. 

3.7 Repeatability Check. A protocol for 

demonstrating that an EC cell operated over 

a given nominal analyte concentration range 

provides a stable and consistent response and 

is not significantly affected by repeated 

exposure to that gas. 

3.8 Sample Flow Rate. The flow rate of 

the gas sample as it passes through the EC 

cell. In some situations, EC cells can 

experience drift with changes in flow rate. 

The flow rate must be monitored and 

documented during all phases of a sampling 

run. 

3.9 Sampling Run. A timed three-phase 

event whereby an EC cell’s response rises 

and plateaus in a sample conditioning phase, 

remains relatively constant during a 

measurement data phase, then declines 

during a refresh phase. The sample 

conditioning phase exposes the EC cell to the 

gas sample for a length of time sufficient to 

reach a constant response. The measurement 

data phase is the time interval during which 

gas sample measurements can be made that 

meet the acceptance criteria of this protocol. 

The refresh phase then purges the EC cells 

with CO-free air. The refresh phase 

replenishes requisite O2 and moisture in the 

electrolyte reserve and provides a mechanism 

to de-gas or desorb any interference gas 

scrubbers or filters so as to enable a stable CO 

EC cell response. There are four primary 

types of sampling runs: Pre-sampling 

calibrations; stack gas sampling; postsampling calibration checks; and 

measurement system repeatability checks. 

Stack gas sampling runs can be chained 

together for extended evaluations, providing 

all other procedural specifications are met. 

3.10 Sampling Day. A time not to exceed 

twelve hours from the time of the presampling calibration to the post-sampling 

calibration check. During this time, stack gas 

sampling runs can be repeated without 

repeated recalibrations, providing all other 

sampling specifications have been met. 

3.11 Pre-Sampling Calibration/PostSampling Calibration Check. The protocols 

executed at the beginning and end of each 

sampling day to bracket measurement 

readings with controlled performance checks. 

3.12 Performance-Established 

Configuration. The EC cell and sampling 

system configuration that existed at the time 

that it initially met the performance 

requirements of this protocol. 

4.0 Interferences 

When present in sufficient concentrations, 

NO and NO2 are two gas species that have 

been reported to interfere with CO 

concentration measurements. In the 

likelihood of this occurrence, it is the 

protocol user’s responsibility to employ and 

properly maintain an appropriate CO EC cell 

filter or scrubber for removal of these gases, 

as described in Section 6.2.12. 

5.0 Safety. [Reserved] 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 

6.1 What equipment do I need for the 

measurement system? 

The system must maintain the gas sample 

at conditions that will prevent moisture 

condensation in the sample transport lines, 

both before and as the sample gas contacts 

the EC cells. The essential components of the 

measurement system are described below. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33855 

6.2 Measurement System Components 

6.2.1 Sample Probe. A single extractionpoint probe constructed of glass, stainless 

steel or other non-reactive material, and of 

length sufficient to reach any designated 

sampling point. The sample probe must be 

designed to prevent plugging due to 

condensation or particulate matter. 

6.2.2 Sample Line. Non-reactive tubing to 

transport the effluent from the sample probe 

to the EC cell. 

6.2.3 Calibration Assembly (optional). A 

three-way valve assembly or equivalent to 

introduce calibration gases at ambient 

pressure at the exit end of the sample probe 

during calibration checks. The assembly 

must be designed such that only stack gas or 

calibration gas flows in the sample line and 

all gases flow through any gas path filters. 

6.2.4 Particulate Filter (optional). Filters 

before the inlet of the EC cell to prevent 

accumulation of particulate material in the 

measurement system and extend the useful 

life of the components. All filters must be 

fabricated of materials that are non-reactive 

to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.5 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump to 

provide undiluted sample gas to the system 

at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the 

response time of the measurement system. If 

located upstream of the EC cells, the pump 

must be constructed of a material that is nonreactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.8 Sample Flow Rate Monitoring. An 

adjustable rotameter or equivalent device 

used to adjust and maintain the sample flow 

rate through the analyzer as prescribed. 

6.2.9 Sample Gas Manifold (optional). A 

manifold to divert a portion of the sample gas 

stream to the analyzer and the remainder to 

a by-pass discharge vent. The sample gas 

manifold may also include provisions for 

introducing calibration gases directly to the 

analyzer. The manifold must be constructed 

of a material that is non-reactive to the gas 

mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.10 EC cell. A device containing one or 

more EC cells to determine the CO and O2

concentrations in the sample gas stream. The 

EC cell(s) must meet the applicable 

performance specifications of Section 13 of 

this protocol. 

6.2.11 Data Recorder. A strip chart 

recorder, computer or digital recorder to 

make a record of analyzer output data. The 

data recorder resolution (i.e., readability) 

must be no greater than 1 ppm for CO; 0.1 

percent for O2; and one degree (either °C or 

°F) for temperature. Alternatively, you may 

use a digital or analog meter having the same 

resolution to observe and manually record 

the analyzer responses. 

6.2.12 Interference Gas Filter or Scrubber. 

A device to remove interfering compounds 

upstream of the CO EC cell. Specific 

interference gas filters or scrubbers used in 

the performance-established configuration of 

the analyzer must continue to be used. Such 

a filter or scrubber must have a means to 

determine when the removal agent is 

exhausted. Periodically replace or replenish 

it in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards. What 

calibration gases are needed? 

7.1 Calibration Gases. CO calibration 

gases for the EC cell must be CO in nitrogen 

or CO in a mixture of nitrogen and O2. Use 

CO calibration gases with labeled 

concentration values certified by the 

manufacturer to be within ± 5 percent of the 

label value. Dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) 

is acceptable for calibration of the O2 cell. If 

needed, any lower percentage O2 calibration 

gas must be a mixture of O2 in nitrogen. 

7.1.1 Up-Scale CO Calibration Gas 

Concentration. Choose one or more up-scale 

gas concentrations such that the average of 

the stack gas measurements for each stack gas 

sampling run are between 25 and 150 percent 

of those concentrations. Alternatively, choose 

an up-scale gas that does not exceed twice 

the concentration of the applicable outlet 

standard. If a measured gas value exceeds 

150 percent of the up-scale CO calibration 

gas value at any time during the stack gas 

sampling run, the run must be discarded and 

repeated. 

7.1.2 Up-Scale O2 Calibration Gas 

Concentration. Select an O2 gas 

concentration such that the difference 

between the gas concentration and the 

average stack gas measurement or reading for 

each sample run is less than 15 percent O2. 

When the average exhaust gas O2 readings are 

above 6 percent, you may use dry ambient air 

(20.9 percent O2) for the up-scale O2

calibration gas. 

7.1.3 Zero Gas. Use an inert gas that 

contains less than 0.25 percent of the upscale CO calibration gas concentration. You 

may use dry air that is free from ambient CO 

and other combustion gas products (e.g., 

CO2). 

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis 

8.1 Selection of Sampling Sites 

8.1.1 Control Device Inlet. Select a 

sampling site sufficiently downstream of the 

engine so that the combustion gases should 

be well mixed. Use a single sampling 

extraction point near the center of the duct 

(e.g., within the 10 percent centroidal area), 

unless instructed otherwise. 

8.1.2 Exhaust Gas Outlet. Select a 

sampling site located at least two stack 

diameters downstream of any disturbance 

(e.g., turbocharger exhaust, crossover 

junction or recirculation take-off) and at least 

one-half stack diameter upstream of the gas 

discharge to the atmosphere. Use a single 

sampling extraction point near the center of 

the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent 

centroidal area), unless instructed otherwise. 

8.2 Stack Gas Collection and Analysis. 

Prior to the first stack gas sampling run, 

conduct the pre-sampling calibration in 

accordance with Section 10.1. Use Figure 1 

to record all data. Zero the analyzer with zero 

gas. Confirm and record that the scrubber 

media color is correct and not exhausted. 

Then position the probe at the sampling 

point and begin the sampling run at the same 

flow rate used during the up-scale 

calibration. Record the start time. Record all 

EC cell output responses and the flow rate 

during the ‘‘sample conditioning phase’’ once 

per minute until constant readings are 

obtained. Then begin the ‘‘measurement data 

phase’’ and record readings every 15 seconds 

for at least two minutes (or eight readings), 

or as otherwise required to achieve two 

continuous minutes of data that meet the 

specification given in Section 13.1. Finally, 

perform the ‘‘refresh phase’’ by introducing 

dry air, free from CO and other combustion 

gases, until several minute-to-minute 

readings of consistent value have been 

obtained. For each run use the ‘‘measurement 

data phase’’ readings to calculate the average 

stack gas CO and O2 concentrations. 

8.3 EC Cell Rate. Maintain the EC cell 

sample flow rate so that it does not vary by 

more than ± 10 percent throughout the presampling calibration, stack gas sampling and 

post-sampling calibration check. 

Alternatively, the EC cell sample flow rate 

can be maintained within a tolerance range 

that does not affect the gas concentration 

readings by more than ± 3 percent, as 

instructed by the EC cell manufacturer. 

9.0 Quality Control (Reserved) 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Pre-Sampling Calibration. Conduct 

the following protocol once for each nominal 

range to be used on each EC cell before 

performing a stack gas sampling run on each 

field sampling day. Repeat the calibration if 

you replace an EC cell before completing all 

of the sampling runs. There is no prescribed 

order for calibration of the EC cells; however, 

each cell must complete the measurement 

data phase during calibration. Assemble the 

measurement system by following the 

manufacturer’s recommended protocols 

including for preparing and preconditioning 

the EC cell. Assure the measurement system 

has no leaks and verify the gas scrubbing 

agent is not depleted. Use Figure 1 to record 

all data. 

10.1.1 Zero Calibration. For both the O2

and CO cells, introduce zero gas to the 

measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the concentration 

reading every minute until readings are 

constant for at least two consecutive minutes. 

Include the time and sample flow rate. 

Repeat the steps in this section at least once 

to verify the zero calibration for each 

component gas. 

10.1.2 Zero Calibration Tolerance. For 

each zero gas introduction, the zero level 

output must be less than or equal to ± 3 

percent of the up-scale gas value or ± 1 ppm, 

whichever is less restrictive, for the CO 

channel and less than or equal to ± 0.3 

percent O2 for the O2 channel. 

10.1.3 Up-Scale Calibration. Individually 

introduce each calibration gas to the 

measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the start time. Record 

all EC cell output responses and the flow rate 

during this ‘‘sample conditioning phase’’ 

once per minute until readings are constant 

for at least two minutes. Then begin the 

‘‘measurement data phase’’ and record 

readings every 15 seconds for a total of two 

minutes, or as otherwise required. Finally, 

perform the ‘‘refresh phase’’ by introducing 

dry air, free from CO and other combustion 

gases, until readings are constant for at least 

two consecutive minutes. Then repeat the 

steps in this section at least once to verify the 

calibration for each component gas. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Introduce all gases to flow through the entire 

sample handling system (i.e., at the exit end 

of the sampling probe or the calibration 

assembly). 

10.1.4 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The 

mean of the difference of the ‘‘measurement 

data phase’’ readings from the reported 

standard gas value must be less than or equal 

to ± 5 percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or ± 0.5 

percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, 

respectively. The maximum allowable 

deviation from the mean measured value of 

any single ‘‘measurement data phase’’ 

reading must be less than or equal to ± 2 

percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or ± 0.5 percent 

O2, whichever is less restrictive, respectively. 

10.2 Post-Sampling Calibration Check. 

Conduct a stack gas post-sampling calibration 

check after the stack gas sampling run or set 

of runs and within 12 hours of the initial 

calibration. Conduct up-scale and zero 

calibration checks using the protocol in 

Section 10.1. Make no changes to the 

sampling system or EC cell calibration until 

all post-sampling calibration checks have 

been recorded. If either the zero or up-scale 

calibration error exceeds the respective 

specification in Sections 10.1.2 and 10.1.4 

then all measurement data collected since the 

previous successful calibrations are invalid 

and re-calibration and re-sampling are 

required. If the sampling system is 

disassembled or the EC cell calibration is 

adjusted, repeat the calibration check before 

conducting the next analyzer sampling run. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

The analytical procedure is fully discussed 

in Section 8. 

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 

Determine the CO and O2 concentrations 

for each stack gas sampling run by 

calculating the mean gas concentrations of 

the data recorded during the ‘‘measurement 

data phase’’. 

13.0 Protocol Performance 

Use the following protocols to verify 

consistent analyzer performance during each 

field sampling day. 

13.1 Measurement Data Phase 

Performance Check. Calculate the mean of 

the readings from the ‘‘measurement data 

phase’’. The maximum allowable deviation 

from the mean for each of the individual 

readings is ± 2 percent, or ± 1 ppm, 

whichever is less restrictive. Record the 

mean value and maximum deviation for each 

gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 

10.1.4. The EC cell flow rate must conform 

to the specification in Section 8.3. 

Example: A measurement data phase is 

invalid if the maximum deviation of any 

single reading comprising that mean is 

greater than ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm (the 

default criteria). For example, if the mean = 

30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and 

above 31 ppm are disallowed). 

13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial 

use of the EC cell and interference gas 

scrubber in the field, and semi-annually 

thereafter, challenge the interference gas 

scrubber with NO and NO2 gas standards that 

are generally recognized as representative of 

diesel-fueled engine NO and NO2 emission 

values. Record the responses displayed by 

the CO EC cell and other pertinent data on 

Figure 1 or a similar form. 

13.2.1 Interference Response. The 

combined NO and NO2 interference response 

should be less than or equal to ± 5 percent 

of the up-scale CO calibration gas 

concentration. 

13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the 

following check once for each nominal range 

that is to be used on the CO EC cell within 

five days prior to each field sampling 

program. If a field sampling program lasts 

longer than five days, repeat this check every 

five days. Immediately repeat the check if the 

EC cell is replaced or if the EC cell is exposed 

to gas concentrations greater than 150 

percent of the highest up-scale gas 

concentration. 

13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. 

Perform a complete EC cell sampling run (all 

three phases) by introducing the CO 

calibration gas to the measurement system 

and record the response. Follow Section 

10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all data. Repeat 

the run three times for a total of four 

complete runs. During the four repeatability 

check runs, do not adjust the system except 

where necessary to achieve the correct 

calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer. 

13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. 

Determine the highest and lowest average 

‘‘measurement data phase’’ CO 

concentrations from the four repeatability 

check runs and record the results on Figure 

1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the 

difference between the maximum and 

minimum average values recorded must not 

vary more than ± 3 percent or ± 1 ppm of the 

up-scale gas value, whichever is less 

restrictive. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved) 

15.0 Waste Management (Reserved) 

16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved) 

17.0 References 

(1) ‘‘Development of an Electrochemical 

Cell Emission Analyzer Test Protocol’’, 

Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission 

Monitoring, Inc., July 1997. 

(2) ‘‘Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, 

Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Emissions 

from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and 

Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers’’, 

EMC Conditional Test Protocol 30 (CTM–30), 

Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI–96/0008, 

Revision 7, October 13, 1997. 

(3) ‘‘ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic 

Monitoring’’, EMC Conditional Test Protocol 

34 (CTM–034), The Institute of Clean Air 

Companies, September 8, 1999. 

(4) ‘‘Code of Federal Regulations’’, 

Protection of Environment, 40 CFR, Part 60, 

Appendix A, Methods 1–4; 10. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33857 

[FR Doc. 2012–13193 Filed 6–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07JN12.004</GPH>