```

[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 9647-9690]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-11]                         


[[Page 9647]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule


[[Page 9648]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-9115-7]
RIN 2060-AP36

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants for existing stationary compression ignition 
reciprocating internal combustion engines that either are located at 
area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions or that have a site 
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower and are located at 
major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. In addition, EPA is 
promulgating national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
for existing non-emergency stationary compression ignition engines 
greater than 500 brake horsepower that are located at major sources of 
hazardous air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is revising the 
provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the 
engines that were regulated previously by these national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. EPA also relies on materials in Docket ID 
Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0030 and incorporates those dockets into the record for the final rule. 
All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 
hours of operation will be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 
(EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; e-
mail address king.melanie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information Document. On March 5, 
2009 (71 FR 9698), EPA proposed national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating 
internal combustion engines (RICE) that either are located at area 
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that have a site 
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower (HP) and are 
located at major sources of HAP emissions. In addition, EPA proposed 
national emission standards for HAP for existing stationary compression 
ignition (CI) engines greater than 500 brake HP that are located at 
major sources. A summary of the public comments on the proposal and 
EPA's responses to the comments, as well as the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis Report, are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708.
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
    D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark 
ignition engines?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?
    B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?
    C. What are the final requirements?
    D. What are the operating limitations?
    E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?
    F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Final Emission Standards
    C. Management Practices
    D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    E. Other
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Final Emission Requirements
    C. Management Practices
    D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    E. Emergency Engines
    F. Emissions Data
    G. Final Rule Impacts
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the benefits?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 
impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
              Category                NAICS \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary             2211  Electric power
 internal combustion engine as                     generation,
 defined in this final rule.                       transmission, or
                                                   distribution.
                                          622110  Medical and surgical
                                                   hospitals.
                                           48621  Natural gas
                                                   transmission.
                                          211111  Crude petroleum and
                                                   natural gas
                                                   production.
                                          211112  Natural gas liquids
                                                   producers.

[[Page 9649]]


                                           92811  National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria of this final rule. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 
3, 2010. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to 
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. 
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark ignition 
engines?

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule, published on 
March 5, 2009, EPA proposed the NESHAP for all existing stationary RICE 
located at area sources of HAP emissions and existing stationary RICE 
that had a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP and 
located at major sources of HAP emissions. Also, EPA proposed NESHAP 
for existing stationary CI engines greater than 500 brake HP located at 
major sources.
    During the comment period following the proposal, EPA received a 
number of comments stating that EPA had insufficient emissions data for 
existing spark ignition (SI) engines. Because commenters believed that 
EPA had inadequate emissions data for SI engines, they suggested that 
EPA should consider seeking an extension of its February 10, 2010 
consent decree deadline to allow additional time for the collection of 
emissions data for SI engines. Several commenters indicated that they 
would work with EPA to gather the necessary test data to obtain 
adequate and sufficient emissions tests for SI engines. Among other 
things, the commenters noted that developing the final requirements for 
SI engines later in 2010 would provide sufficient time for industry to 
develop test programs, conduct testing of engines, assemble test 
results, and submit the complete results to EPA for review. Other 
commenters requested that EPA seek a one year extension of its consent 
decree deadline for SI engines, which would mean a final rule for these 
engines by February 10, 2011.
    In consideration of the comments, EPA sought and obtained a six 
month extension of its February 10, 2010 deadline for SI engines. EPA 
maintains that this period is sufficient for the commenters to provide 
additional test data for the SI engines. Thus, pursuant to the revised 
consent decree between EPA and Sierra Club, EPA will finalize 
requirements for existing stationary SI engines that are less than or 
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions and 
existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of HAP 
emissions by August 10, 2010. For these reasons, this final rule does 
not contain standards for existing stationary SI engines that are less 
than or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions 
and existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of 
HAP emissions.
    Consistent with the original consent decree, EPA is finalizing 
regulations for existing stationary CI engines that are less than or 
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources and existing stationary CI 
engines that are located at area sources in this final rule. EPA is 
also promulgating requirements for existing stationary non-emergency CI 
engines that are greater than 500 HP and located at major sources.
    EPA plans to continue to work with affected stakeholders over the 
next several months in order to obtain more complete emissions data for 
existing stationary SI engines. The emissions data collected will be 
analyzed and if EPA's review indicates that the submitted data meets 
acceptance criteria, EPA will include the data in developing final 
standards. EPA will promulgate regulations for existing stationary SI 
engines by August 10, 2010.

II. Background

    This action promulgates NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE with 
a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources, 
existing non-emergency CI engines with a site rating greater than 500 
HP at major sources, and existing stationary CI RICE of any power 
rating located at area sources. EPA is finalizing these standards to 
meet its statutory obligation to address HAP emissions from these 
sources under sections 112(d), 112(c)(3) and 112(k) of the CAA. The 
final NESHAP for stationary RICE will be promulgated

[[Page 9650]]

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which already contains standards 
applicable to new stationary RICE and some existing stationary RICE.
    EPA promulgated NESHAP for existing, new, and reconstructed 
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major sources on June 
15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and 
reconstructed stationary RICE that are located at area sources of HAP 
emissions and for new and reconstructed stationary RICE that have a 
site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP that are located at major 
sources of HAP emissions on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3568). At that 
time, EPA did not promulgate final requirements for existing stationary 
RICE that are located at area sources of HAP emissions or for existing 
stationary RICE that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP 
that are located at major sources of HAP emissions. Although EPA 
proposed standards for these sources, EPA did not finalize these 
standards due to comments received indicating that the proposed Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) determinations for existing 
sources were inappropriate because of a decision by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007, which 
vacated EPA's MACT standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ). Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007). Among other things, the DC 
Circuit found that EPA's no emission reduction MACT determination in 
the challenged rule was unlawful. Because EPA had used a MACT floor 
methodology in the proposed stationary RICE rule similar to the 
methodology used in the Brick MACT, EPA decided to re-evaluate the MACT 
floors for existing major sources that have a site rating of less than 
or equal to 500 brake HP consistent with the Court's decision in the 
Brick MACT case. Also, EPA has re-evaluated the standards for existing 
area sources in light of the comments received on the proposed rule.
    In addition, stakeholders have encouraged the Agency to review 
whether there are further ways to reduce emissions of pollutants from 
existing stationary diesel engines. In its comments on EPA's 2005 
proposed rule for new stationary diesel engines (70 FR 39870), the 
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggested several possible avenues for 
the regulation of existing stationary diesel engines, including use of 
diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed diesel particulate filters 
(CDPF), as well as the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. EDF 
suggested that such controls can provide significant pollution 
reductions at reasonable cost. EPA issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) in January 2008, where it solicited comment on 
several issues concerning options to regulate emissions of pollutants 
from existing stationary diesel engines, generally, and specifically 
from larger, older stationary diesel engines. EPA solicited comment and 
collected information to aid decision-making related to the reduction 
of HAP emissions from existing stationary diesel engines and 
specifically from larger, older engines under CAA section 112 
authorities. The Agency sought comment on the larger, older non-
emergency CI engines because available data indicate that those engines 
emit the majority of particulate matter (PM) and toxic emissions from 
non-emergency stationary CI engines as a whole. A summary of comments 
and responses that were received on the ANPRM is included in docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995. EPA proposed and is finalizing emissions 
reductions from existing non-emergency stationary diesel engines at 
major sources that have a site rating greater than 500 HP.
    This action also revises the provisions of the existing NESHAP as 
it applies to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. This 
revision affects all stationary engines regulated in this NESHAP, 
including stationary engines that were regulated by the 2004 and 2008 
NESHAP. The revision of these provisions is a result of a Court 
decision that invalidated regulations related to startup, shutdown and 
malfunction in the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)).

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?

    This final rule addresses emissions from existing stationary CI 
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all 
existing stationary CI engines located at area sources. This final rule 
also addresses emissions from existing stationary non-emergency CI 
engines greater than 500 HP at major sources. A major source of HAP 
emissions is generally a stationary source that emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) 
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 
megagrams) or more per year. An area source of HAP emissions is a 
source that is not a major source.
    This action revises the regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
ZZZZ, currently applicable to new and reconstructed stationary RICE and 
to existing stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major 
sources. Through this action, we are adding to subpart ZZZZ 
requirements for: Existing CI stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 
HP located at major sources and existing CI stationary RICE located at 
area sources.
1. Stationary CI RICE  500 HP at Major Sources
    In addition, EPA is finalizing emission standards for non-emergency 
stationary CI engines greater than 500 HP at major sources.

B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?

    The final rule regulates emissions of HAP. Available emissions data 
show that several HAP, which are formed during the combustion process 
or which are contained within the fuel burned, are emitted from 
stationary engines. The HAP which have been measured in emission tests 
conducted on diesel fired stationary RICE include: 1, 3-butadiene, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, 
naphthalene, PAH, polycyclic organic matter, styrene, toluene, and 
xylene. Metallic HAP from diesel fired stationary RICE that have been 
measured include: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
and selenium.
    EPA described the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted 
from the operation of stationary RICE in the preamble to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart ZZZZ, published on June 15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). More detail 
on the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted from the 
operation of stationary RICE can be found in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for the final rule. These HAP emissions are known to 
cause, or contribute significantly to air pollution, which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
    The final rule will limit emissions of HAP through emissions 
standards for CO for existing stationary CI RICE. Carbon monoxide has 
been shown to be an appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions from CI 
engines. For the NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA found that there is a 
relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions 
reductions from CI stationary engines. Therefore, because testing for 
CO emissions has many advantages over testing for HAP emissions, CO 
emissions were chosen as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for 
CI stationary engines.
    For the standards being finalized in this action, EPA believes that 
previous decisions regarding the appropriateness of using CO in 
concentration (parts per million (ppm)) levels as has been done for 
stationary sources before as surrogates for HAP are still valid.\1\ 
Consequently, EPA is finalizing emission standards for CO for 
stationary CI engines in order to regulate HAP emissions. In addition, 
EPA is promulgating separate provisions relevant to emissions of 
metallic HAP from existing diesel engines, as discussed in section 
III.C. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In contrast, mobile source emission standards for diesel 
engines (both nonroad and on-highway) are promulgated on a mass/bhp-
hr basis rather than concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reducing HAP and CO, the final rule will result in 
the reduction of PM emissions from existing stationary diesel engines. 
The aftertreatment technologies expected to be used to reduce HAP and 
CO emissions also reduce emissions of PM from diesel engines. Also, the 
final rule requires the use of ULSD for diesel-fueled stationary non-
emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less 
than 30 liters per cylinder. This will result in lower emissions of 
sulfur oxides (SOX) and sulfate particulate from these 
engines by reducing the sulfur content in the fuel.

C. What are the final requirements?

1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major Sources.
    The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this 
action for stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources 
are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The numerical emission standards 
are in units of ppm by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or percent reduction.

[[Page 9652]]



  Table 1--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary CI RICE
                        Located at Major Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Except during periods of
              Subcategory                            startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 100500 HP...............  23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
                                          reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, certain existing stationary RICE located at major 
sources are subject to fuel requirements. Owners and operators of 
existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a 
displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder located at major 
sources that use diesel fuel must use only diesel fuel meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section requires that diesel 
fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and either a minimum 
cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent. 
These fuel requirements are being finalized in order to reduce the 
potential formation of sulfate compounds that are emitted when high 
sulfur diesel fuel is used in combination with oxidation catalysts and 
to assist in the efficient operation of the oxidation catalysts.
    EPA is finalizing work practice standards for existing stationary 
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources 
and existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located 
at major sources. Existing stationary emergency CI RICE less than or 
equal to 500 HP located at major sources are subject to the following 
work practices:
     Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the 
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis 
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are 
exceeded;
     Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first; and
     Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation 
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located at 
major sources are subject to the following work practices:
     Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the 
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis 
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are 
exceeded;
     Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first; and
     Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually, 
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.

Sources also have the option to use an oil change analysis program to 
extend the oil change frequencies specified above. The analysis program 
must at a minimum analyze the following three parameters: Total Base 
Number, viscosity, and percent water content. The analysis must be 
conducted at the same frequencies specified for changing the engine 
oil. If the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the 
engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of 
the condemning limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator must 
change the oil before continuing to use the engine. The condemning 
limits are as follows:
     Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total 
Base Number of the oil when new; or
     Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent 
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
     Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(g), sources can also 
request that the Administrator approve alternative work practices.
    EPA is also including in the final rule additional capture and 
collection requirements to reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners and 
operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 
300 HP located at major sources must do one of the following if the 
engine is not already equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation 
system: (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents 
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2) 
install an open crankcase filtration emission control system that 
reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to 
remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
    The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this 
action for stationary CI RICE located at area sources are shown in 
Table 2 of this preamble. Existing stationary emergency engines at area 
sources located at residential, commercial, or institutional facilities 
are not part of the source category and therefore are not subject to 
any requirements under this final rule.
    Although existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 300 
HP that are located at area sources in Alaska that are not accessible 
by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) do not have to meet the CO 
emission standards specified in Table 2 of this preamble, they must 
meet the management practices discussed in this section for non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP.

   Table 2--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary RICE
                         Located at Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Except during periods of
              Subcategory                            startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP................  23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
                                          reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI 
engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters 
per cylinder located at area sources that use diesel fuel must use only 
diesel fuel meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section 
requires that diesel fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and 
either a minimum cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35 
volume percent.

[[Page 9653]]

    EPA is finalizing management practices for existing stationary 
emergency CI RICE located at area sources and existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources. 
Existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at area sources are 
subject to the following management practices:
     Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the 
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis 
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
     Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first; and
     Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation 
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP 
located at area sources are subject to the following management 
practices:
     Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the 
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis 
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
     Inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or 
annually, whichever comes first; and
     Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually, 
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.

As discussed above for major sources, these sources may utilize an oil 
analysis program in order to extend the specified oil change 
requirement specified above. Also, sources have the option to work with 
State permitting authorities pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 
subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal 
Authorities'') for approval of alternative management practices. 
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to 
approve alternative State/local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when 
such requirements are demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA 
promulgated standards.
    Finally, in order to reduce metallic HAP emissions, existing 
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP located at area 
sources must do one of the following if the engine is not already 
equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install a 
closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions 
from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2) install an open crankcase 
filtration emission control system that reduces emissions from the 
crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to remove oil mist, 
particulates, and metals.
3. Startup Requirements
    The following stationary engines are subject to specific 
operational standards during engine startup:
     Existing CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at 
major sources,
     Existing non-emergency CI RICE greater than 500 HP located 
at major sources,
     Existing CI RICE located at area sources,
     New or reconstructed non-emergency two-stroke lean burn 
(2SLB) >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
     New or reconstructed non-emergency four-stroke lean burn 
(4SLB) >=250 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
     Existing non-emergency four-stroke rich burn (4SRB) >500 
HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
     New or reconstructed non-emergency 4SRB >500 HP located at 
a major source of HAP emissions, and
     New or reconstructed non-emergency CI >500 HP located at a 
major source of HAP emissions.

Engine startup is defined as the time from initial start until applied 
load and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal 
operation. For stationary engines with catalytic controls, engine 
startup means the time from initial start until applied load and engine 
and associated equipment reaches steady state, or normal operation, 
including the catalyst. Owners and operators must minimize the engine's 
time spent at idle and minimize the engine's startup to a period needed 
for appropriate and safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 
minutes, after which time the engine must meet the otherwise applicable 
emission standards. These requirements will limit the HAP emissions 
during periods of engine startup. Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 
63.6(g), engines at major sources may petition the Administrator for an 
alternative work practice. An owner or operator of an engine at an area 
source can work with its State permitting authority pursuant to EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for approval of an alternative 
management practice. See 40 CFR Subpart E (setting forth requirements 
for, among other things, equivalency by permit, rule substitution).

D. What are the operating limitations?

    In addition to the standards discussed above, EPA is finalizing 
operating limitations for stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are 
greater than 500 HP. Owners and operators of engines that are equipped 
with oxidation catalyst must maintain the catalyst so that the pressure 
drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water 
from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the 
initial performance test. Owners and operators of these engines must 
also maintain the temperature of the stationary RICE exhaust so that 
the catalyst inlet temperature is between 450 and 1350 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Owners and operators may petition for a different 
temperature range; the petition must demonstrate why it is 
operationally necessary and appropriate to operate below the 
temperature range specified in the rule (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)). Owners 
and operators of engines that are not using oxidation catalyst must 
comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI 
engines greater than 300 HP meeting the requirement to use open or 
closed crankcases must follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance 
requirements for operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase 
ventilation systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request 
the Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that 
are as protective as manufacturer requirements.

E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?

    The following sections describe the requirements for demonstrating 
compliance under the final rule.
1. Existing Stationary CI RICE at Major Sources
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
located at major sources that are less than 100 HP and stationary 
emergency CI RICE located at major sources must operate and maintain 
their stationary RICE and aftertreatment control device (if any) 
according to the manufacturer's emission-related written instructions 
or develop their own maintenance plan. Owners and operators of existing 
stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources that are less 
than 100 HP and existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at major 
sources do not have to conduct any

[[Page 9654]]

performance testing because they are not subject to numerical emission 
standards.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
located at major sources that are greater than or equal to 100 HP and 
less than or equal to 500 HP must conduct an initial performance test 
to demonstrate that they are achieving the required emission standards.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
greater than 500 HP located at major sources must conduct an initial 
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving 
the required emission standards.
    Owners and operators of stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are 
greater than 500 HP and are located at a major source must continuously 
monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an oxidation 
catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop across the 
catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation catalyst is not 
being used on the engine, the owner or operator must continuously 
monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) approved by the 
Administrator.
    On October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59956), EPA proposed performance 
specification requirements for continuous parametric monitoring systems 
(CPMS). Currently there are no performance specifications for the CPMS 
that are required for continuously monitoring the catalyst inlet 
temperature. The timetable for finalizing the proposed performance 
specification requirements is uncertain; therefore, EPA plans to 
finalize performance specification requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart ZZZZ for the CPMS systems used for continuous catalyst inlet 
temperature monitoring when the final requirements are promulgated for 
existing SI engines in August 2010.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
    Owners and operators of existing stationary RICE located at area 
sources that are subject to management practices, as shown in Table 2 
of this preamble, must develop a maintenance plan that specifies how 
the management practices will be met. Owners and operators of existing 
stationary RICE that are subject to management practices do not have to 
conduct any performance testing.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
greater than 300 HP that are located at area sources must conduct an 
initial performance test to demonstrate that they are achieving the 
required emission standards.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
that are greater than 500 HP and located at area sources and are not 
limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial performance test 
and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, whichever 
comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving the required 
emission standards. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE that are greater than 500 HP and located at area 
sources and are limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial 
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 5 
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving 
the required emission standards.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE 
that are greater than 500 HP and are located at an area source must 
continuously monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an 
oxidation catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop 
across the catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation 
catalyst is not being used on the engine, the owner or operator must 
continuously monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) 
approved by the Administrator.

F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?

    The following sections describe the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements that are required under the final rule.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary emergency RICE that do 
not meet the requirements for non-emergency engines are required to 
keep records of their hours of operation. Owners and operators of 
existing stationary emergency RICE must install a non-resettable hour 
meter on their engines to record the hours of operation of the engine. 
Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for the purpose of 
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are 
recommended by the Federal, State or local government, the 
manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the 
engine. Maintenance checks and readiness testing of such units are 
limited to 100 hours per year. There is no time limit on the use of 
emergency stationary engines in emergency situations; however, the 
owner or operator is required to record the length of operation and the 
reason the engine was in operation during that time. Records must be 
maintained documenting why the engine was operating to ensure the 100 
hours per year limit for maintenance and testing operation is not 
exceeded. In addition, owners and operators are allowed to operate 
their stationary emergency RICE for non-emergency purposes for 50 hours 
per year, but those 50 hours are counted towards the total 100 hours 
provided for operation other than for true emergencies. The 50 hours 
per year for non-emergency purposes cannot be used to generate income 
for a facility, for example, to supply power to an electric grid or 
otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another 
entity. However, owners and operators may operate the emergency engine 
for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of a demand response program 
if the regional transmission organization or equivalent balancing 
authority and transmission operator has determined there are emergency 
conditions that could lead to a potential electrical blackout, for 
example unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy 
deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. The engine may not be 
operated for more than 30 minutes prior to the time when the emergency 
condition is expected to occur, and the engine operation must be 
terminated immediately after the facility is notified that the 
emergency condition is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per year of 
demand response operation are counted as part of the 50 hours of 
operation per year provided for non-emergency situations. Owners and 
operators must keep records showing how they were notified of the 
emergency condition and by whom, and the time that the engine was 
operated as part of demand response.
    Owners and operators of existing stationary CI RICE located at area 
sources that are subject to management practices as shown in Table 2 of 
this preamble are required to keep records that show that management 
practices that are required are being met. These records must include, 
at a minimum: Oil and filter change dates and corresponding hour on the 
hour meter; inspection and replacement dates for air cleaners, hoses, 
and belts; and records of other emission-related repairs and 
maintenance performed.
    Owners and operators of existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE 
greater than 300 HP must keep records of the manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance procedures for the closed crankcase ventilation system or 
open crankcase filtration system and records of the maintenance 
performed on the system.

[[Page 9655]]

    In terms of reporting requirements, owners and operators of 
existing stationary RICE, except stationary RICE that are less than 100 
HP, existing emergency stationary RICE, and existing stationary RICE 
that are not subject to numerical emission standards, must submit all 
of the applicable notifications as listed in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an initial 
notification, notification of performance test, and a notification of 
compliance for each stationary RICE which must comply with the 
specified emission limitations.

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

    Most of the rationale used to develop the proposed rule remains the 
same for the final rule. Therefore, the rationale previously provided 
in the preamble to the proposed rule is not repeated in the final rule, 
and the rationale sections of the rule, as proposed, should be referred 
to. Major changes that have been made to the rule since proposal are 
discussed in this section with rationale following in the Summary of 
Responses to Major Comments section.

A. Applicability

    EPA proposed to regulate HAP emissions from existing stationary 
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all 
existing stationary engines located at area sources. EPA also proposed 
NESHAP for existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 
500 HP that are located at major sources.
    In the final rule, EPA is only regulating HAP emissions from 
existing stationary CI engines. EPA will address HAP emissions from 
existing stationary SI engines in a separate rulemaking later this 
year.
    Another change from the proposal is that the final rule is not 
applicable to existing stationary emergency engines at area sources 
that are located at residential, commercial, or institutional 
facilities. These engines are not subject to any requirements under the 
final rule because they are not part of the regulated source category. 
EPA has found that existing stationary emergency engines located at 
residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area 
sources were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy 
inventory and were not included in the listing of urban area sources. 
More information on this issue can be found in the memorandum entitled, 
``Analysis of the Types of Engines Used to Estimate the CAA Section 
112(k) Area Source Inventory for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engines,'' available from the rulemaking docket.

B. Final Emission Standards

1. Existing Stationary CI Engines 2) standard. In the final rule, all 
existing stationary CI engines less than 100 HP located at major 
sources must meet work practices. These work practices are described in 
section III.C. of this preamble. EPA believes that work practices are 
appropriate and justified for this group of stationary engines because 
the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations. Further information on EPA's 
decision can be found in section V.B. below and in the memorandum 
entitled, ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary Non-
Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary Emergency CI 
RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing Stationary CI RICE 
Located at Area Sources,'' which is available from the rulemaking 
docket.
2. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines 1002 standard. EPA revised the proposed CO standard 
for this group of engines based on additional information and data 
received after the proposal, which led to a reevaluation of the MACT 
floor for these stationary engines. A discussion of the final MACT 
floor determination can be found in the memo entitled ``MACT Floor and 
MACT Determination for Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE 
Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP Located at Major Sources,'' which is 
available from the rulemaking docket. All existing stationary CI 
engines less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources, both 
emergency and non-emergency, are subject to management practice 
standards under the final rule, as was proposed.
3. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines >300 HP
    EPA proposed that existing stationary non-emergency CI engines 
greater than 300 HP meet a 4 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2 
standard or a 90 percent CO reduction standard. Numerous commenters 
indicated that EPA's dataset was insufficient and urged EPA to gather 
more data to obtain a more complete representation of emissions from 
existing stationary CI engines. Commenters also questioned the emission 
standard setting approach that EPA used at proposal and claimed that 
the proposed standards did not take into account emissions variability 
and may not be achievable. For the final rule EPA has obtained 
additional test data for existing stationary CI engines and has 
included this additional data in the MACT floor analysis. EPA is also 
using an approach that better considers emissions variability, as 
discussed in V.B. below.
    In the final rule, EPA is providing owners and operators the option 
of meeting either a CO concentration or a CO percent reduction 
standard. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI 
engines greater than 300 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP located at 
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70 
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 49 
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators of existing 
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP located at 
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70 
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 23 
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. EPA's review of the data indicate 
that it is appropriate to base the MACT standard on a reduction level 
of 70 percent, which takes into account the variability of the emission 
reduction efficiency of aftertreatment under various operational 
conditions.
4. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines 1002 standard. In the final rule, existing stationary 
emergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than

[[Page 9656]]

or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources must meet work 
practices. These work practices are described in section III.C. of this 
preamble. EPA believes that work practices are appropriate and 
justified for this group of stationary engines because the application 
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and 
economic limitations. Further information on EPA's decision can be 
found in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for 
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing 
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for 
Existing Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources,'' which is 
available from the rulemaking docket.
5. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines >500 HP Located at Area 
Sources
    For existing stationary emergency engines located at area sources, 
EPA reevaluated the information available for emergency engines and 
considered extensive input received from industry and other groups who 
asserted that the proposed standards were not GACT for emergency 
engines at area sources. In the final rule, as discussed below in 
section V.B., all existing stationary emergency CI engines located at 
area sources must meet management practice standards.

C. Management Practices

    EPA proposed management practices for several subcategories of 
engines located at area sources. EPA explained that the proposed 
management practices would be expected to ensure that emission control 
systems are working properly and would help minimize HAP emissions from 
the engines. EPA proposed specific maintenance practices and asked for 
comments on the need and appropriateness for those procedures. Based on 
feedback received during the public comment period, which included 
information submitted in comment letters and additional information EPA 
received following the close of the comment period from different 
industry groups, EPA is finalizing management practices for existing 
stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to 300 HP 
located at area sources and all existing emergency stationary CI 
engines located at area sources.
    Existing stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to 
300 HP located at area sources are required to change the oil and 
filter every 1,000 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes 
first, inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or annually, 
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 
necessary. Existing emergency stationary CI engines located at area 
sources are required under the final rule to change the oil and filter 
every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, 
inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or annually, 
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 
necessary. EPA is adding an option for sources to use an oil change 
analysis program to extend the oil change frequencies specified above. 
The analysis program must at a minimum analyze the following three 
parameters: Total Base Number, viscosity, and percent water content. If 
the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the engine owner 
or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of the limits are 
exceeded, the engine owner or operator must change the oil before 
continuing to use the engine. The condemning limits are as follows:
     Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total 
Base Number of the oil when new; or
     Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent 
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
     Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.

Owners and operators of all engines subject to management practices 
also have the option to work with State permitting authorities pursuant 
to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for alternative maintenance 
practices to be used instead of the specific maintenance practices 
promulgated in this rule. The maintenance practices must be at least as 
stringent as those specified in the final rule.
    The final rule specifies that in situations where an emergency 
engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut 
down the engine in order to perform the work or management practice 
requirements on the schedule required in the final rule, or if 
performing the work or management practice on the required schedule 
would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or 
local law, the maintenance activity can be delayed until the emergency 
is over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has 
abated. The maintenance should be performed as soon as practicable 
after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal, 
State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to 
perform the work practice on the schedule required and the Federal, 
State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

    EPA proposed formaldehyde and CO emission standards for existing 
stationary engines at major sources to apply during periods of startup 
and malfunction. EPA also proposed certain standards for existing 
stationary engines at area sources that would apply during startup and 
malfunction. Based on various comments and concerns with the proposed 
emission standards for periods of startup, EPA has determined that it 
is not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would 
apply during startup because the application of measurement methodology 
to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations, as discussed in detail in section V.D.
    As a result, EPA is promulgating operational standards during 
startup that specify that owners and operators must limit the engine 
startup time to no more than 30 minutes and must minimize the engine's 
time spent at idle during startup. Based on information reviewed by 
EPA, engine startup typically requires no more than 30 minutes. We 
received comments indicating that there are conditions where it may 
take more than 30 minutes to startup the engine, for example for cold 
starts or where the ambient conditions are very cold. However, 
commenters did not provide enough specificity in their comments, nor 
did commenters provide data, to determine whether any scenarios were 
appropriate to allow a longer startup period. Owners and operators of 
engines at major sources have the option to petition the Administrator 
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. Any petition 
must be based on specific factual information indicating the reason the 
alternative work practice is necessary for that engine and is no less 
stringent than startup requirements in the rule. An owner or operator 
of an engine at an area source can work with its State permitting 
authority pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for 
approval of an alternative management practice, based on specific 
factual information indicating the reason that an alternative 
management practice is necessary for that engine. Such alternative 
management practice must be demonstrated to be no less

[[Page 9657]]

stringent than EPA promulgated standards.
    As discussed further below, in section V.D., EPA is not setting 
separate standards for malfunctions in this rule. Therefore, the 
standards that apply during normal operation also apply during 
malfunction. EPA believes that any emissions occurring during a 
malfunction would be of such a short duration compared to the emissions 
averaged during overall testing time (three one-hour runs) that the 
engine would still be able to comply with the emission standard. In 
addition, EPA does not view malfunction as a distinct operating mode 
and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to 
be taken into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards. Further, 
as is explained in more detail in Section V.D. below, even if 
malfunctions were considered a distinct operating mode, we believe it 
would be impracticable to take into account malfunctions in setting CAA 
section 112(d) standards.

E. Other

    EPA is including an additional requirement in the final rule that 
will reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners and operators of existing 
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP must do one of 
the following if the engine is not already equipped with a closed 
crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install a closed crankcase 
ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted 
to the atmosphere, or (2) install an open crankcase filtration emission 
control system that reduces the crankcase emissions by filtering the 
exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals. Owners and 
operators must follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance 
requirements for operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase 
ventilation systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request 
the Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that 
are as protective as manufacturer requirements.
    EPA is including special provisions in the final rule for existing 
stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP located at area 
sources in Alaska not accessible by the FAHS. Owners and operators of 
these engines do not have to meet the CO emission standards specified 
in Table 2 of this preamble, but must instead meet the management 
practices that are described for stationary non-emergency CI RICE less 
than or equal to 300 HP in section III.C. of this preamble.
    The final rule specifies that stationary CI engines that are used 
to startup combustion turbines should meet the same requirements as 
stationary emergency CI engines.

V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    A more detailed summary of comments and EPA's responses can be 
found in the document entitled ``Response to Public Comments on 
Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Located 
at Area Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site 
Rating Less Than or Equal to 500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of 
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions,'' which is available from the 
rulemaking docket (see ADDRESSES section).

A. Applicability

    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern over EPA's decision 
to not distinguish between rural and urban engines at area sources in 
the proposed rule. Several commenters requested that EPA reevaluate its 
congressional authority to regulate area HAP sources in rural areas. 
The commenters believed that the proposal is inconsistent with 42 
U.S.C. 7412(n)(4)(B) [CAA section 112(n)(4)(B)]. Commenters requested 
clarification of EPA's rationale to regulate low levels of emissions 
from engines at oil and gas production facilities outside metropolitan 
areas, contending that EPA has applied this rule more broadly than the 
Congressional intent of the CAA, and requested that EPA reevaluate this 
issue of whether EPA can regulate rural area sources in light of the 42 
U.S.C. 7412(n)(4)(B) language.
    Commenters stated that EPA has based this rulemaking for area 
sources on sections of the CAA and its Urban Air Toxics Strategy that 
are intended to remove threats to public health in urban areas. The 
commenters do not believe that the remote RICE at area sources in the 
oil and gas industry threaten public health in urban areas. Several 
commenters noted that the NESHAP for glycol gas dehydrators (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HH) takes into account the location of area sources 
and does not apply the specific requirements of the rule to rural area 
sources. The commenters believe that the same approach should be used 
for the RICE rule, i.e., engines that are not located in or near 
populated areas should be exempt or subject to an alternative set of 
requirements so as not to force expensive requirements on remote 
engines that have no impact on public health.
    One commenter on behalf of the agricultural industry expressed that 
the operational area of these engines has not been studied to evaluate 
the environmental benefit obtained in congested areas as compared to 
open agricultural locations. This commenter opined that there should be 
some measure of variable compliance provided in relation to the area of 
operation of these engines.
    Response: EPA is finalizing its proposal to regulate existing 
stationary CI engines located at area sources on a nationwide basis. 
EPA has not made a final determination with regard to existing SI 
engines at area sources, and will do so in the later rule finalizing 
regulations for SI engines. EPA believes that the CAA provides the 
Agency with the authority to regulate area sources nationwide. Section 
112(k)(1) of the CAA states that ``It is the purpose of this subsection 
to achieve a substantial reduction in emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants from area sources and an equivalent reduction in the public 
health risks associated with such sources including a reduction of not 
less than 75 per centum in the incidence of cancer attributable to 
emissions from such sources.'' Consistent with this expressed purpose 
of section 112(k) of the CAA to reduce both emissions and risks, CAA 
section 112(k)(3)(i) requires that EPA list not less than 30 HAP that, 
as a result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas. Sections 
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(ii) of the CAA require that EPA list area source 
categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the area source 
emissions of each of the listed HAP. Section 112(c) of the CAA requires 
that EPA issue standards for listed categories under CAA section 
112(d). These relevant statutory provisions authorize EPA to regulate 
listed area source engines and not just engines located in urban areas. 
EPA believes that sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA do not prohibit 
issuing area source rules of national applicability. EPA also disagrees 
with the statement that the proposal was inconsistent with section 
112(n)(4)(B) of the CAA. The term ``associated equipment'' was defined 
for the purposes of subpart ZZZZ in the first RICE MACT rule not to 
include stationary RICE. EPA has not revisited that issue in this rule 
and the commenters have not provided sufficient reason to revisit that 
issue.
    EPA does not believe that existing stationary CI engines are more 
prevalent

[[Page 9658]]

in rural areas than in urban areas. Indeed, EPA estimates that only 17 
percent of stationary CI area source engines subject to the rule are 
located in rural areas, using the definitions used in the Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy. Given the requirement to regulate all engines in the 
source category in urban areas, we do not believe requiring regulation 
on a national basis is inappropriate.
    The majority of stationary CI engines are used for emergency 
purposes. EPA has estimated that 80 percent of stationary CI engines 
are emergency engines and EPA has taken steps in the final rule to 
reduce the burden on owners and operators of these engines. All 
emergency CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions are 
subject only to management practices under the final rule. EPA has also 
determined that existing emergency engines located at residential, 
institutional, and commercial facilities that are area sources of HAP 
emissions were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy 
inventory and therefore are not included in the source category 
listing. In the final rule, EPA has specified that those engines are 
not subject to subpart ZZZZ. In addition, existing non-emergency CI 
engines less than or equal to 300 HP that are located at area sources 
of HAP emissions are also only subject to management practices. EPA 
believes that requiring management practices instead of specific 
emission limitations and/or control efficiency requirements on the 
majority of existing stationary CI engines at area sources alleviates 
concerns regarding costly and burdensome requirements for rural 
sources.
    For existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 
HP, EPA determined that GACT was the use of oxidation catalyst control. 
The commenters did not provide a reason that GACT would be different 
for non-emergency stationary CI engines located in rural areas. In 
determining GACT, EPA can consider factors such as availability and 
feasibility of control technologies and management practices, as well 
as costs and economic impacts. These factors are not different for 
existing stationary non-emergency CI engines in urban versus rural 
areas. For example, the availability of oxidation catalysts would be 
the same for urban and rural engines, and if an engine was in a rural 
location, that would not preclude an owner from being able to install 
aftertreatment controls. For the final rule, EPA estimated the capital 
cost of retrofitting an existing stationary non-emergency CI engine to 
around $7,000 for a 300 HP engine. Annual costs of operating and 
maintaining the control device are estimated to be approximately $2,000 
per year for the same engine. These costs would not be prohibitive for 
any engines and either rural or urban areas and are expected to be the 
same no matter the location. Furthermore, the controls that are 
expected to be used on non-emergency engines above 300 HP will have the 
co-benefit of PM reductions. PM emissions can travel tens or hundreds 
of miles from their source, so emissions from diesel engines in rural 
areas can impact urban populations. There is also no reason to 
distinguish between the rural and urban area source engines that are 
subject to management practices. There is nothing limiting owners and 
operators of existing stationary CI engines located in rural areas from 
following the management practices specified in the final rule.
    In response to requests that agricultural stationary engines should 
be treated differently from other engines and should be allowed special 
provisions, EPA is of the understanding that the majority of stationary 
engines used for agricultural purposes are below 300 HP. Several 
commenters representing agricultural interests have made the statement 
to EPA that most of their engines are below 300 HP. As previously 
discussed in this response, EPA is finalizing management practices for 
area source engines less than or equal to 300 HP. Therefore, it is not 
expected that many stationary agricultural engines will be required to 
put on controls. Agricultural engines less than or equal to 300 HP at 
rural and urban area sources would be required to follow the management 
practices specified in the final rule. Management practices will ensure 
that emissions are reduced and engines are properly operated.
    Consistent with the proposal and for the reasons discussed, EPA is 
finalizing national requirements for existing stationary CI engines 
without a distinction between urban and non-urban areas.
    Comment: Five commenters expressed that EPA's proposal would have a 
significant impact to the State of Alaska, especially with respect to 
power generation in their rural communities. They explained that Alaska 
has unique regional circumstances whereby regulating diesel engine 
emissions in rural Alaska in the same manner as other engines 
nationwide could have unintended negative consequences. The commenters 
were concerned about the extension of section 112(k) of the CAA 
requirements to rural sources, expressing that the purpose of CAA 
section 112(k) is to address urban issues. The commenters opined that 
the scale of HAP emissions in rural areas of Alaska is different and 
should be addressed in a way that is appropriate to the rural 
conditions that exist there. The commenters expressed that, 
historically, EPA has recognized the unique aspects of rural Alaska's 
diesel distribution system and diesel engine use and has allowed Alaska 
some flexibility (e.g., under the CI NSPS). The commenters requested 
that EPA assess and consider rural Alaska's situation and allow for 
flexibility to address the challenges associated with the proposed 
rule.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that stationary CI area 
source engines located in remote areas of Alaska have special 
challenges that should be taken into consideration. As the commenters 
noted, over 180 rural communities in Alaska that are not accessible by 
the Federal Aid Highway System rely on stationary diesel engines and 
fuel for electricity. They are scattered over long distances in remote 
areas and are not connected to population centers by road or power 
grid. They are located in the most severe arctic environments in the 
United States. Transportation of diesel fuel to these areas is 
dependent on weather and communities typically pay some of the highest 
prices for fuel in the United States. Stationary engines located in 
rural areas of Alaska have different fuel storage and use logistics and 
higher operating and compliance costs. Many of these communities are 
accessible only by plane. In light of the comments, we believe it is 
appropriate to treat engines located at area sources in areas of Alaska 
that are not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System as a separate 
subcategory. We re-evaluated GACT for the subcategory of stationary 
engines located at area sources of HAP that are in an area of Alaska 
that is not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System. For these 
engines, we determined that GACT is the same management practices as 
those required for non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP 
located at area sources. For more discussion of this issue, refer to 
the memo entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary 
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary 
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing 
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.''

B. Final Emission Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters expressed opposition to EPA's proposal 
to have emission standards apply to

[[Page 9659]]

small engines at major sources. Three commenters said that EPA should 
not finalize emission limits for engines less than 100 HP. One 
commenter argued that stationary engines that are less than 100 HP 
should be exempted from numerical HAP emission standards. In the 
commenter's opinion, it is not cost effective to install add-on 
controls on small engines or to purchase a new engine. According to the 
commenter, the majority of engines in this size range are operated for 
intermittent household or other infrequent use and emissions are 
naturally limited, the commenter said, and low emissions do not justify 
the costs associated with requiring a numerical HAP limit. One 
commenter does not believe that measurement is economically practicable 
for a small unit as the cost of testing will likely exceed the value of 
the engine itself. The commenter urged EPA to exclude small sources 
from the category.
    Response: EPA has reanalyzed its proposed standards based on the 
information and data presented and EPA concludes that it is not 
feasible within the context of this rulemaking to prescribe emission 
limitations for existing stationary CI engines smaller than 100 HP 
located at major sources, because the measurement of emissions from 
these engines is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations. In order to measure the emissions from these engines on a 
ppmvd at 15 percent O2 basis, the following test methods are 
required: EPA Method 1 or 1A for selection of sampling ports; EPA 
Method 3, 3A, or 3B for determining the O2 concentration; 
EPA Method 4 for measuring the moisture content, and EPA Method 10 or 
ASTM D6522-00 (2005) for measuring the CO concentration. These test 
methods require the sample point to be a certain distance between the 
engine and the exhaust. Because engines below 100 HP often have exhaust 
pipes with very small diameters and lengths, stack testing using these 
methods could require a modification or extension of the exhaust pipe 
to accomplish the test. The cost to do the testing ranges from 
approximately $1,000-$5,000 depending on the method used. Generally, 
100 HP engines cost around $5,000-$7,000 dollars and 50 HP engines cost 
approximately $4,000-$5,000, so the cost of performance testing could 
approach the cost of the engine itself. Given the cost of the testing 
itself, the physical adjustments necessary to accomplish the test, and 
the particular circumstances pertaining to stationary engines below 100 
HP, we believe that the application of measurement methodology to this 
class of engines is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations. Therefore, EPA is promulgating work practice standards for 
these engines. Additional detail regarding this analysis can be found 
in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing 
Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing 
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for 
Existing Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that the use of CO as a surrogate for 
HAP emissions from stationary diesel engines is flawed and does not 
meet the DC Courts three part test for reasonableness. According to the 
commenter, the DC Court surrogate three part test requires EPA to 
demonstrate each of the following: (1) HAP from the source must be 
``invariantly present'' in the surrogate; (2) control technology that 
reduces the surrogate must ``indiscriminately capture'' HAP from the 
source; and (3) control of the surrogate is the only means to control 
HAP from the source. The commenter pointed out that EPA admitted that 
CO may not be an adequate surrogate for metallic HAP emissions in the 
current proposal. The commenter argued that oxidation catalyst is only 
capable of 30 percent reduction of PM, thus allowing 70 percent of the 
PM, including metallic and semi-volatile HAP to be emitted to the 
atmosphere. In addition, the commenter pointed out that technologies 
that control CO are not the only means by which a source can achieve 
reductions in HAP emitted from stationary diesel engines. The commenter 
believes that based on the DC Court's three tests, final standards are 
not appropriate, and recommended that EPA adopt standards based on PM 
rather than CO reductions.
    Response: EPA believes that CO emissions are an appropriate 
surrogate for HAP emissions for stationary CI engines. EPA has 
demonstrated the relationship between CO emissions and HAP emissions in 
previous rulemakings for stationary engines. EPA does not have any data 
to support a relationship between PM emissions and HAP emissions for 
stationary CI engines, nor did the commenter provide any data to 
support such a relationship for this source category. It is clear that 
there are methods for reducing PM emissions, like reducing sulfur from 
fuel, that may not lead to a reduction in HAP. In addition, it is not 
clear that reductions in PM would reduce emissions of all HAP emitted 
from stationary engines, particularly emissions of formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, etc., that represent the vast majority of the HAP 
emissions from this source category. Therefore, for this particular 
source category, use of PM as a surrogate for HAP is not appropriate. 
The commenter also did not provide any data from testing of stationary 
CI engines to show that CO is not a good surrogate for metallic HAP. CO 
is also a better surrogate for HAP emitted from stationary CI engines 
than PM because PM is more difficult and expensive to measure than CO 
for this source category. For semi-volatile HAP, the testing conducted 
by EPA at Colorado State University showed that an oxidation catalyst 
reduced PAH emissions by greater than 90 percent for most of the PAH 
that were tested, and that CO level reductions correlated with level 
reductions in such HAP.
    In addition, as discussed above, EPA is taking an additional action 
pursuant to its authority under section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) for 
further control of metallic HAP. EPA determined that the most effective 
and achievable method for of controlling metallic HAP emissions from 
existing stationary CI engines is through the use of crankcase emission 
control systems. Combustion gases and oil mist that are vented from the 
engine crankcase are a substantial source of any metallic HAP emissions 
from stationary CI engines. EPA is promulgating a further standard 
under section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) that requires stationary non-
emergency diesel engines greater than 300 HP to install either an open 
or closed crankcase filtration emission control system if the engine is 
not already equipped with one. The open crankcase filtration emission 
control system reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the 
exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals. In the 
case of the closed system, crankcase emissions are collected and 
filtered and those that remain in a gaseous state are routed to the 
intake manifold for burning. We believe this requirement will reduce 
metallic HAP from the stationary engine emissions.
    Comment: Multiple commenters were concerned with how EPA set the 
MACT floor for the proposed rule. Several commenters said that EPA has 
not considered variability in setting the MACT floor for the proposed 
rule. A commenter cited the recent Brick MACT ruling which indicated 
that ``floors may legitimately account for variability [in the best 
performing sources that are the MACT floor basis] because ``each 
[source] must meet the [specified] standard every day and under all 
operating conditions.'' The commenters

[[Page 9660]]

stated EPA's data set is not sufficient in covering variability. One 
commenter noted that the Courts have been critical of EPA's process for 
setting minimum allowable emission limits. The commenter stated that 
EPA set the emission limits by averaging the best 12 percent of all 
performance tests for each subcategory, but did not consider 
operational variations of the units. The commenter recommended that EPA 
set emission limits at the emissions level that is actually achieved 
under the worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances for the best 
performing 12 percent as allowed by the Courts in the Cement Kiln MACT 
and Brick Kiln MACT decisions.
    Multiple commenters suggested that EPA should consider a scenario 
under which lower temperatures and reduced catalyst efficiencies may 
occur due to reduced engine speed or load, resulting in lower 
temperatures and consider an alternative work practice under section 
112(h) of the CAA for the situation. Two commenters noted that the 
emission standards in the proposed rule apply at all times, but that 
there is no data or information in the rulemaking docket that supports 
the proposed limits at low loads or at operating conditions other than 
high load. The commenters expressed that EPA should provide data and 
analysis that supports requiring emission limits to be met at all 
times. Also, for compliance at all times, the commenter asked what 
averaging times apply.
    Response: EPA agrees that emissions variability should be better 
analyzed and has included a revised approach to variability in the MACT 
floor analysis. The final emission standards are based on test data 
collected from stationary engines produced by different engine 
manufacturers, operating at various loads and other conditions, and 
located in various types of service and locations. The engines range in 
size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The data includes engines operating at 
loads from 25-100 percent. To the extent commenters believed further 
data would have beneficial to EPA, EPA must make its determinations 
based on the information available to it. EPA asked for further data, 
and EPA did receive further data following the proposal, which led to 
changes in the final regulations. For engines operating at reduced 
speed or loads resulting in a reduced exhaust temperature, EPA believes 
that numerical emission requirements are still appropriate and there is 
no justification to only require work practice standards during these 
situations. We do not believe that the provisions of section 112(h) of 
the CAA are met (except as discussed elsewhere with regard to periods 
of start-up, emergency engines, and engines below 100 HP) because 
testing is not economically and technologically impractical and the 
emissions can be readily routed through a conveyance for purposes of 
emission testing. EPA believes that the final emission standards will 
be achievable at all times covered by the standards and will reflect 
the numerous engine models and operating scenarios that can be expected 
from stationary engines.
    Regarding the comment asking about the averaging times that apply, 
EPA has clarified in the final rule that the emission standards are 
based on the average of three one-hour runs.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the proposed 
limits for emergency engines at both area and major sources. Numerous 
commenters stated that EPA should adopt management practices for 
emergency engines at area sources and not require emission limits from 
these engines. Commenters stated that emergency engines need special 
consideration, due to minimal operation, and the commenters said that 
EPA should apply section 112(h) of the CAA for emergency engines at 
major sources because of this limited operation. Several commenters 
recommended that emergency engines be subject to only work practice 
standards that limit the number of hours allowed for operation during 
non-emergency events.
    Several commenters recommended that EPA require management 
practices rather than a numerical emission limit for emergency diesel 
generators greater than 500 HP at area sources. The commenters 
suggested that such management practices could replace the existing 
proposed emission standard requirements for emergency CI engines 
greater than 500 HP. The commenters stated that the proposed rule and 
related docket indicates that CI emergency diesel engines can achieve a 
40 ppmvd CO emission standard for both normal operations and startup or 
malfunction periods without add-on technology, which the commenters did 
not believe was correct. The commenters said the proposed rulemaking 
does not provide any basis for the proposed standards for emergency 
engines of this size range, and the GACT determination has not been 
properly established for these engines. In particular, according to the 
commenters, subsection 1 of section IV.B. of the proposed rule, which 
is cited in subsection 2 as the basis for the area source standards for 
large CI engines, does not appear to include any discussion of emission 
controls for emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP. In the absence 
of such justification, the commenters state that the MACT floor for 
these large engines is no controls. The commenter acknowledged that 
such a no control argument may not be acceptable under the MACT because 
of the Brick MACT court case, but the commenters stated that there is 
no such limitation in making GACT determinations. The commenter was 
concerned that establishing an emission standard for large emergency CI 
engines would establish requirements for the installation of add-on 
controls for some, if not most of the sources in that category. EPA 
needs to conduct a regulatory analysis and assessment of the costs of 
these controls. The commenter gave an example of the impact of an 
emission limit and the impact of installing controls on one of his 
units. The commenter concluded that because of the unit's limited 
operation, an oxidation catalyst control will have limited, if any, 
control effectiveness in actual use.
    The commenters said that despite EPA's claims that the agency is 
not requiring performance tests of emergency engines, major sources 
with existing emergency engines appear to have an implicit testing 
requirement to demonstrate that they comply with concentration limits. 
Such testing could significantly increase the time the typical 
emergency engine would be used in year and impose additional 
environmental impact and costs. The commenters said EPA needs to 
resolve the conflict between the preamble and the regulatory language 
and replace the emission limits for emergency engines with work 
practices. The commenters raised similar concerns about the apparent 
requirement for performance testing of emergency RICE due to ambiguous 
rule language and said it should be clarified to explicitly state that 
such testing is not required. The commenter said the rule would require 
not only initial performance testing, but testing every 3 years. 
Because engine operation for performance testing would likely exceed 
typical operation for operational testing and maintenance, these 
testing requirements would result in increased operation of the engine 
with a corresponding significant increase in operating costs and 
emissions of other pollutants such as NOX. The commenters 
said emergency engines are used only during emergencies, other than 
short (less than one-half hour) weekly tests to assure the engines will 
perform. According to the commenter, performance tests (initial or

[[Page 9661]]

every 3 years) consisting of three 1-hour runs typically cost about 
$10,000 each and are not justified for limited use engines, the tests 
alone would add substantially to the fuel use of these engines are 
result in additional and unnecessary emissions and work practice 
standards under section 112(h) are more appropriate due to 
``technological and economic limitations.''
    Response: EPA reviewed the information submitted by the commenters 
and determined that it would be appropriate to require management 
practices for all emergency stationary CI engines at area sources. 
Because these engines are typically used only a few number of hours per 
year, the costs of emission control and the costs of emission testing 
are not warranted when compared to the emission reductions that would 
be achieved. The proposed numeric emission levels are not GACT for 
emergency engines at area sources. Such engines rarely if ever use the 
type of emission controls that might have been necessary for many 
engines to meet the numeric standard, and such engines are rarely if 
ever subjected to emissions testing. Therefore, EPA determined that 
GACT for all stationary emergency engines at area sources is the use of 
management practices.
    EPA also analyzed the types of engines that were included in the 
area source category listing for stationary RICE. As a result of this 
analysis, EPA determined that emissions from existing stationary 
emergency engines located at residential, commercial, and institutional 
facilities that are area sources of HAP were not included in the 1990 
baseline emissions inventory that was used as the basis for the listing 
of source categories needed to ensure that 90 percent of area source 
emissions are regulated. Existing stationary emergency engines located 
at residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area 
sources are therefore not subject to this regulation.
    For stationary emergency engines at major sources, EPA determined 
that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard 
because the application of measurement methodology to this class of 
engines is impracticable due to technological and economic limitations. 
A more detailed discussion of this determination can be found in the 
memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary 
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary 
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing 
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.'' EPA determined that it is 
impracticable to test stationary CI emergency engines using the test 
procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ because using these procedures 
would increase the required number of hours of operation of the engine 
beyond the routinely scheduled reliability testing and maintenance 
operation, thereby increasing emissions. While emergency engines have 
periods of operation for scheduled maintenance and reliability testing, 
those periods are usually several hours shorter than the number of 
hours that would be required to run the necessary emissions tests under 
subpart ZZZZ. CARB conducted a survey of stationary emergency diesel 
engines in 2002 \2\ to determine the average number of hours that 
stationary emergency diesel engines operate. The average hours of 
operation for maintenance and testing were 22 hours per year, which is 
less than two hours per month. For the engines that CARB surveyed, 86 
percent operated less than 30 hours/year for testing and maintenance. 
Thirty percent operated less than 10 hours/year. National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) codes require that stationary diesel 
engines that are used for emergency purposes are run 30 minutes per 
week (27 hours per year) for maintenance and testing purposes. It is 
impracticable to test emergency stationary engines as a result of 
emergency operation because emergencies are unplanned events and 
implementation of the test procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ require 
advance planning before tests are conducted. In an emergency, the 
owner/operator does not have the advance planning time necessary to 
implement subpart ZZZZ. It is also impracticable to test stationary CI 
emergency engines at major sources because of the large population of 
these engines. EPA estimates that there are over 200,000 existing 
stationary CI engines from 100-500 HP at major sources that are subject 
to this rulemaking. There are only approximately 300-400 testing firms 
and these stationary engines are not the only sources that are required 
to be tested, so if testing were required for these engines, it would 
take many years to test all of these engines. The cost for testing all 
of these engines would also be approximately $200 million, which would 
be unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ California Air Resources Board Staff Report: Initial 
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control 
Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. Stationary 
Source Division, Emissions Assessment Branch. September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects that these changes from the proposed rule address the 
concerns expressed by the commenters about the requirements for 
stationary emergency CI engines. Regarding the comments pertaining to 
performance testing for emergency engines, EPA did not intend for the 
rule to require performance testing for emergency engines. The final 
rule does not contain any performance testing requirements for 
emergency engines.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the standard require CDPF 
or a combination of oxidation catalysts and CDPF for new or existing 
non-emergency diesel RICE. The commenter stated that EPA's proposal 
calls for oxidation catalysts on non-emergency CI engines, which EPA 
reports will result in a 90 percent reduction in CO and 30 percent 
reduction in PM, whereas CDPF would result in greater reductions in PM 
(90 percent reductions or greater).
    Another commenter reported that it had conducted risk assessment 
evaluations for diesel particulate emissions from non-emergency diesel 
engines and found that the diesel particulate emissions from non-
emergency diesel engines and found that the diesel particulate 
emissions often create a significant cancer risk even when there is a 
30 percent PM reduction. The commenter recommended that EPA base 
standards on CDPF or a combination of oxidation catalyst and CDPF, for 
existing and new non-emergency diesel engines.
    Response: The standards that EPA proposed and that EPA is 
finalizing do not require a particular control technology. For the 
proposed rule, EPA's beyond-the-floor analysis resulted in standards 
that were based on the use of oxidation catalyst control for stationary 
non-emergency diesel engines above 300 HP; EPA has made the same 
determination for the beyond-the-floor standards in the final rule. EPA 
determined that the MACT standards should be based on oxidation 
catalyst rather than CDPF because we do not have any data that shows 
that CDPFs get greater reductions of HAP than oxidation catalysts on 
stationary engines, and CDPFs are approximately four times as costly as 
oxidation catalysts.\3\ EPA also has concerns regarding the technical 
feasibility of CDPFs for existing stationary diesel engines. Many 
existing diesel engines are not electronically controlled, and PM 
emissions from older engines are often too high for efficient operation 
of

[[Page 9662]]

a CDPF. Further, engine exhaust temperatures are often not high enough 
for regeneration of the CDPF filter substrate. EPA notes that owners 
and operators are free to choose whichever control technology, which 
could be oxidation catalyst or CDPF, as long as they meet the final 
standards. EPA is not addressing new diesel engines in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ California Air Resources Board Staff Report: Initial 
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control 
Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. Stationary 
Source Division, Emissions Assessment Branch. September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A few commenters were concerned about requirements that 
might apply to engines that startup turbines. Four commenters suggested 
that RICE used to startup combustion turbines be exempt from the 
proposed rule, or deemed to fall under the ``emergency'' definition in 
40 CFR Sec.  63.6675. One commenter explained that turbine RICE only 
run for a few minutes to get the unit started and the total fuel 
consumption is not significant. One commenter was concerned that the 
short run-time during each operation may not be long enough to get the 
filter up to its design temperature for achievement of its removal 
efficiency (and note that EPA discusses it in the preamble) or that a 
filter may require additional run time for regeneration. The commenter 
further noted that the additional run-time required by the 3 year 
testing requirement could outstrip the run-time needed to support these 
combustion turbine peaking unit starting devices just for compliance 
with the RICE rule. The commenter noted that increased consumption of 
fuel for rule compliance would be wasting the natural resource and 
adding emissions for no measurable reduction being gained by the rule. 
Two commenters noted that every major power plant in the United States 
is required to have black start capability, which typically involves a 
small combustion turbine equipped with a diesel engine used for startup 
of the turbine. According to the commenter, the diesel starting engine, 
rated less than 500 HP, generally operates less than 10 minutes per 
combustion turbine start. The commenter indicated that the majority of 
black start units only operate during emergencies or unusually high 
demand days, and that a review of the commenter's company's operating 
data determined that seven black start units in the system averaged 32 
starts per year (which equates to less than 6 hours of operation per 
year, although some limited additional operation may occur as a result 
of routine maintenance and readiness testing).
    Response: In the final rule EPA has required that stationary 
engines used to startup combustion turbines meet work practice 
standards. EPA finds that the short time of operation for these engines 
(10-15 minutes per start) makes application of measurement methodology 
for these engines using the required procedures, which require 
continuous hours of operation, impracticable. Requiring numerical 
emission standards for these engines would actually require 
substantially longer operation than would occur normally in use, 
leading to greater emissions and greater costs. EPA also agrees with 
the commenters that it would not be appropriate to set emission limits 
that are based on the use of aftertreatment control for the subcategory 
of stationary CI engines that are used to startup combustion turbines. 
Oxidation catalyst control would not be effective for these engines due 
to their short time of operation (10-15 minutes per start).

C. Management Practices

    Comment: Several commenters did not agree with the specific 
management practices that EPA has proposed in the rule for area sources 
or recommended different maintenance practices. According to the 
commenters, the maintenance frequency in the proposed rule exceeds 
current practices or is not supported in the proposed rule. Several 
commenters agreed that management practices are appropriate for the 
proper operation of the engines and is a reasonable means to reduce HAP 
emissions, however, did not agree with the specific maintenance 
practices proposed by EPA. Numerous commenters recommended that EPA 
allow owners/operators to follow engine manufacturers' recommended 
practices or the owners/operators own site-specific maintenance plan.
    One commenter pointed out that operators have a direct interest in 
maintaining engine oil, hoses, and belts, so the engine runs reliably, 
but the appropriate frequency for these maintenance practices are 
specific to engine design and are not ``one size fits all.'' Ten 
commenters recommended that EPA revise fixed maintenance (one-size-
fits-all) requirements to maintenance plans. The commenters stated 
that, while fixed maintenance intervals work well for new mass produced 
engines similar to those in automobiles, they are inappropriate for the 
wide variety of existing engines used in the oil and gas, agriculture, 
and power generation industries across the nation. The commenters 
pointed out that EPA allows the use of operator-defined maintenance 
plans that are ``consistent with good air pollution control practice 
for minimizing emissions'' to be used in other portions of this same 
rule, and asserted that EPA should allow the use of operator-defined 
maintenance plans to greatly reduce cost and allow operators to 
optimize maintenance for each type of engine.
    One of these commenters added that current industry engine 
maintenance programs are driven by tried-and-true practices and since 
these practices effectively keep the engines running, they allow the 
products of the members of the commenter's organization to go to 
market. The commenter stated that additional, burdensome, frequent, and 
time-consuming maintenance requirements will cause the members of the 
commenter's organization to more-frequently shut down engines and thus 
shut down production.
    Two commenters said that if EPA keeps the management practices as 
proposed, the frequencies associated with conducting engine maintenance 
should be revised to be commensurate with today's practices. The 
commenter believes the maintenance practices, as proposed, are 
significantly burdensome and lack basis. According to the commenters, 
EPA should replace the maintenance hour intervals with company 
recommended performance-based maintenance practices to be documented in 
an operator-defined maintenance plan consistent with requirements in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
    One commenter stated that most of the engine manufacturers for the 
engines in the oil and gas industry recommend oil changes on a monthly 
schedule. The commenter also indicated that it is common practice to 
periodically sample and test the engine oil to see if the oil 
properties are sufficient to extend this time period between oil 
changes. According to the commenter, this testing has shown in many 
cases that the oil change interval can be extended without any 
detrimental effects on the engine, which allows industry to maximize 
efficiencies, minimize oil usage, reduce waste, and streamline 
operations with no negative impacts to the engine or emissions.
    One commenter expressed that inspection of hoses and belts has no 
impact on HAP emissions. The commenter expressed that, generally, it 
agreed that performing maintenance on engines will help to reduce HAP 
emissions, but that while inspecting belts and hoses is an important 
part of general engine maintenance (and most sources likely conduct 
regular inspections of their engines), such inspections have no effect 
on emissions and should be removed from the proposed rule.

[[Page 9663]]

    Response: EPA proposed to require specific management practices for 
certain engines, primarily for smaller existing stationary engines at 
area sources where EPA thought that add-on controls were not GACT. EPA 
indicated at proposal that the management practices specified in the 
proposal reflected GACT and that such practices would provide a 
reasonable level of control, while at the same time ensuring that the 
burden on particularly small businesses and individual owners and 
operators would be minimized. EPA asked for comment on the proposed 
management practices and received comments on the proposal from 
industry.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that it is difficult to adopt a set 
of management practices that are appropriate for all types of 
stationary engines. Regardless, EPA must promulgate emission standards 
pursuant to section 112(d)(5) for all engines at area sources covered 
by the final rule. EPA still believes that a management practice 
approach reflects GACT for emergency engines and smaller engines at 
area sources. These management practices represent what is generally 
available among such engines to reduce HAP, and the practices will 
ensure that emissions are minimized and engines are properly operated. 
EPA does not agree with the commenters that it would be appropriate to 
simply specify that owners and operators follow the manufacturer's 
recommended maintenance practices for the engine. EPA cannot delegate 
to manufacturers the final decision regarding the proper management 
practices required by section 112(d). To address the comments that 
there may be special and unique operating situations where the 
management practices in the rule may not be appropriate, for example 
engines using a synthetic lubricant, EPA notes that owners/operators 
may work with State permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E 
(``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities'') 
for approval of alternative management practices for their engines. 
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to 
approve alternative State/local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when 
such requirements are demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA 
promulgated standards.
    The management practices EPA proposed for stationary engines 
greater than 50 HP included changing the oil and filter every 500 
hours, replacing the spark plugs every 1,000 hours, and inspecting all 
hoses and belts every 500 hours and replacing as necessary. For engines 
less than 50 HP, EPA proposed to require that these engines change the 
oil and filter every 200 hours, replace spark plugs every 500 hours, 
and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as 
necessary.
    EPA agrees that there is a wide range of recommended maintenance 
procedures, but EPA must promulgate specific requirements pursuant to 
section 112(d) for this source category. Based on the different 
suggested maintenance recommendations EPA has reviewed, maintenance 
requirements appear to vary depending on whether the engine is used for 
standby, intermittent, or continuous operation. Maintenance is also 
dependent on the engine application, design, and model. Taking into 
consideration the information received from commenters on the proposed 
maintenance practices for oil and filter changes and carefully 
reviewing engine manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures, EPA 
has determined that for stationary non-emergency engines below 300 HP, 
GACT will require the oil and filter to be changed every 1,000 hours of 
operation or annually, whichever comes first, which reflects the 
management practices that are generally available. For stationary 
emergency engines, the final rule requires the oil and filter to be 
changed every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes 
first. EPA notes that in the final rule it has clarified that spark 
plug changes are not required for stationary diesel engines since 
diesel engines do not use spark plugs. EPA also determined that it 
would be appropriate to include the option to use an oil analysis 
program in the final rule.
    EPA does not agree with the comments that inspecting belts and 
hoses has no impact on emissions. Ensuring that the engine is properly 
operated and maintained will help minimize the HAP emissions from the 
engine. Properly maintained belts and hoses allow the engine to operate 
at maximum efficiency. Hoses are generally used to move coolant through 
the engine to prevent the engine from overheating. Overheating of the 
engine can cause a malfunction in the combustion process, and may also 
burn the engine oil in the combustion chamber. Both of these conditions 
may increase pollutant emissions from the engine. Belts are commonly 
used for electrical generation and engine timing, and if worn or broken 
can cause damage to the engine and increase emissions. Therefore, EPA 
has required management practices that reflect GACT and that, in EPA's 
view, will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the engine.

D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

    Comment: Several commenters expressed serious concern over the 
proposed emission standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM). The commenters state that the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District Columbia Circuit vacated the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A on December 19, 2008, and the decision requires the 
Agency to implement standards that apply at all times, including during 
SSM periods. Numerous commenters thought the quick response to the 
December 2008 Court decision on the SSM issue is premature and 
recommended that EPA wait for a final decision before incorporate 
elements from this case. Numerous commenters are of the opinion that 
EPA has not provided a technical basis for its establishment of SSM 
limits and that any SSM limits should be replaced with work practice 
standards and disagreed with the decision to include limits for SSM 
periods. In addition, several commenters said that emissions during SSM 
events cannot be measured and therefore cannot be confirmed and limits 
are not enforceable. One commenter recommended that EPA require a SSM 
plan similar to the SSM plan currently required under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart ZZZZ. The commenter also pointed out that 40 CFR 63.6650(b) in 
the existing rule requires operators to operate and maintain their 
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices at all times, including periods of SSM. The commenter 
believed that this requirement in conjunction with a SSM plan will 
achieve the same goals as the proposed rules in a much more cost 
effective and logical manner.
    Many commenters recommended that EPA consider other alternatives to 
implement during SSM periods, such as possibly requiring work practice 
standards, which the commenters believe is the most reasonable approach 
and is justified under the CAA. Commenters believed that work practice 
standards that minimize the emissions during SSM periods is the most 
practical method of keeping HAP emissions from engines as low as 
possible.
    Several commenters said that there is no method to determine 
compliance during SSM periods. The commenters said that it will be 
difficult or impossible to design a test program to describe emissions 
during SSM events, e.g., the commenter is not sure how a

[[Page 9664]]

malfunction would be defined considering the unexpected and anomalous 
nature of the event. Therefore, emissions during these periods cannot 
be confirmed, the commenters said. Similarly, commenters believed that 
it is not reasonable to set numerical limits during startup because 
there are no available or repeatable test methods or procedures for 
measuring emissions during startup or malfunction, plus there is no 
prescribed definition of what constitutes startup of an engine, which 
can vary significantly for a number of reasons such as engine and 
catalyst type, fuel, climatic conditions, application and load.
    One commenter said that there are no viable measurement methods 
available to measure CO, formaldehyde or VOC during transient operation 
and a review conducted by the commenter of Table 4 in the proposed rule 
shows the inconsistencies related to transient measurement 
acceptability with respect to stack gas moisture and flow rate, delays 
in the actual response of analyzers, issues in obtaining an accurate 
measurement during a transient test due to an axial diffusion function 
in long gaseous emissions sample lines, and field gaseous emission 
measurements require stack traverse as well for the emissions under 
measurement, per EPA Methods 7, 10, 25, etc., which eliminates the 
possibility of getting an accurate measurement during transient events 
such as a startup.
    One commenter claimed that issuance of numerical limits for SSM 
based on the emissions of the ``best controlled sources prior to full 
warm up of the catalytic control'' fails to consider emissions during 
malfunction of the engines themselves. The commenter asserts that while 
EPA appropriately determined that during a control device malfunction, 
the floor and standard cannot be set assuming operation of the control 
device, EPA errs in limiting its analysis solely to operation of the 
controls since emissions can increase as a result of engine 
malfunctions as well. The commenter noted that its experience is 
consistent with EPA's statements that emissions during an engine 
malfunction may increase due to the effects on exhaust temperatures and 
composition. The commenter concluded that emission limits would need to 
be based on the emissions level from the best performing sources 
without control while the engine is malfunctioning. One commenter added 
that it does not make sense to set any numerical standards during a 
malfunction of an engine because inherent in the concept of a 
malfunction is that emissions will be malfunctioning as well. It is 
also not logical to apply the concept of ``best performing'' 
malfunctioning engine, the commenter said. For these reasons, it is 
unreasonable for EPA to promulgate numerical emission limits for 
periods of malfunction, in the commenter's opinion. Emission testing 
for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct given the sporadic 
and unpredictable nature of the events, the commenter said. The 
commenter said that the nature of malfunctions means it is not feasible 
to predict or simulate emissions that occur during periods of 
malfunctions. The commenter asserted that with respect to engines, it 
is not technologically or economically feasible to apply measurement 
methodology for the emissions during SSM periods and further, that it 
is unreasonable for the Agency in the face of the lack of accurate 
emission measurements to simply set the standard at the level for 
normal operations (e.g., for sources not using a control device). The 
commenter stated that this situation is precisely the circumstance in 
which Congress envisioned that a work practice standard would be 
established, and urged EPA to adopt a work practice standard applicable 
to malfunction and startup periods for engines consistent with section 
112(h) of the CAA and not to apply the numerical limits for normal 
operations.
    One commenter stated that EPA solicited comment on the level of 
specificity needed to define the periods of startup and malfunction. 
The commenter believes the responses differ based on whether the event 
is a startup or malfunction. The commenter noted that startup of an 
engine begins with the start of fuel flow to the engine and ends when 
the engine has achieved normal operating temperature and air to fuel 
flows as indicated by the manufacturers' specifications, and while the 
initiation of a startup is predictable, its conclusion is not time-
determined, but operationally-determined. The commenter noted where a 
catalyst is used to control emissions; startup does not end until the 
required catalyst bed temperature has been achieved, however, this may 
happen before the engine air and fuel flows are normal and thus 
catalyst bed temperature is not the exclusive criterion that defines 
the end of the startup period. The commenter noted that the start of 
the malfunction should be defined as when the normal operation emission 
limit is exceeded and the end of the malfunction should be set as when 
the normal operation emission limit is restored or the engine is 
shutdown. The commenter noted that malfunctions often require shutdown 
to address, but such shutdowns can be delayed because immediate engine 
shutdown would cause other upsets. Therefore, the commenter believes it 
would not be reasonable to set any specific time limits on either 
startup or malfunction periods, because their duration can be a 
function of operational need. Similarly, one commenter disagreed that 
it would be appropriate to set a specific limit on the time allowed for 
startup because not all engines experience the same type of startup and 
malfunction. The length of startup will depend on many factors 
including engine type, size, fuel type and duty cycle, plus the 
frequency of required startups will also vary greatly among engines 
because some engines are only used for intermittent operation.
    Some commenters thought that limiting the engine startup time is a 
reasonable method to limit emissions. The commenter added that the most 
effective way to control emissions during startup for engines with 
catalysts is to limit the amount of time it takes to warm up the 
exhaust to initialize the catalyzation process and startup time can be 
easily monitored. The commenter added that the time to be monitored at 
startup be defined as from the initial engine in-cylinder combustion, 
corresponding with continuous operation, up to the point that a defined 
catalyst inlet temperature is reached. The commenter also recommended 
that owners/operators be able to request additional startup time if 
necessary in special circumstances, e.g., in extremely cold climates or 
where sufficient load cannot be reached within 30 minutes. The 
commenters recommended a limit of one hour for startup and 30 minutes 
for shutdown. The rule should not include a time limit for 
malfunctions, as the length of time during which an engine will be out 
of compliance would depend on the type of malfunction, the commenters 
said. The commenters suggested that each affected source would be 
required to prepare a SSM plan, which would have to address appropriate 
actions and time limits for malfunctions. The commenter suggested that 
for engine startups, the work practice should require loading the 
engine to normal operating load as soon as practicable so that the 
catalytic controls are within operating range as soon as practicable
    The commenters also objected to EPA's proposed second option. The 
commenter said the data are apparently derived from the best controlled 
engines not using catalytic controls. The commenter said that emissions 
data

[[Page 9665]]

from steady-state operation of uncontrolled engines does not account 
for the cooler engine and fuel temperature conditions during startup. 
Nor does the second option properly account for malfunctions.
    One commenter proposed that EPA treat SSM emissions as de minimis, 
using the DC Circuit rationale in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. The 
commenter noted that catalyst systems do not perform at low 
temperatures, and the SSM periods vary in duration and intensity, which 
can significantly impact actual emissions profiles. The commenter 
provided examples of why an assumption that SSM emissions are identical 
to normal stable operations emissions is erroneous and a gross over-
simplification of unit operations.
    Response: EPA received extensive comments on the proposed 
requirements applicable to existing stationary engines during SSM. 
Consistent with the recent Court decision that vacated the exemption in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019), EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all 
times. EPA disagrees with those comments suggesting that EPA was 
premature in proposing standards during periods of startup, shutdown 
and malfunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit issued its opinion vacating the SSM exemption in 
December 2008, and we appropriately accounted for that decision in 
proposing the rule in February 2009. EPA does not believe it is 
appropriate to promulgate final rules that are inconsistent with the 
decision of the DC Circuit.
    EPA has determined that the emissions from stationary CI engines 
during startup are significantly different than the emissions during 
normal operation. During startup, incomplete combustion of the diesel 
fuel causes variations in the pollutant concentrations and fluctuations 
in the flow rate of the exhaust gas. Incomplete combustion is due to 
cold areas of the cylinder walls that cause the temperature to be too 
low for efficient combustion. As the engine continues to operate, these 
cold regions begin to heat up and allow for more complete combustion of 
the diesel fuel and stabilization of the exhaust flow rate and 
pollutant concentrations. In addition, the engine experiences extreme 
transient conditions during startup, including variations in speed and 
load, poor atomization of the fuel injection, which leads to variable 
engine and engine exhaust temperatures, variable exhaust gas flow 
rates, and variable diluent pollutant concentration. Note for example 
the brief time spent at different load conditions as shown in Figure 1 
of the attachment to EMA's letter dated February 17, 2009 (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0708-0019), which illustrates the transient nature of the engine 
startup phase. Other factors that cause emissions to be higher during 
startup, including for engines that are not equipped with oxidation 
catalyst, are a higher propensity for engine misfire and poorer 
atomization of the fuel spray during startup. After-treatment 
technologies like oxidation catalysts and CDPFs must also reach a 
threshold temperature in order to reduce emissions effectively. In the 
February 17, 2009, EMA letter, EMA provided various graphs illustrating 
sample engine startup profiles and graphs demonstrating the effect of 
engine exhaust temperature on catalyst efficiency. Figure 6 of the 
attachment to EMA's letter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019.1) shows how the 
CO efficiency is a function of the catalyst inlet temperature.
    EPA has evaluated the criteria in section 112(h) and carefully 
considered and reviewed the comments on this issue. EPA has determined 
that it is not feasible to prescribe a numerical emission standard for 
stationary CI engines during periods of startup because the application 
of measurement methodology to these engines is not practicable due to 
the technological and economic limitations described below.
    EPA test methods (e.g., 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 3A, 
4, and 10) do not respond adequately to the relatively short term and 
highly variable exhaust gas characteristics occurring during these 
periods. The innate and substantial changes in the engine operations 
during startup operations create rapid variations in exhaust gas flow 
rate as well as changes in both pollutant and diluent gas 
concentrations. Correlating the exhaust gas flow rates and the gas 
components concentration data for each fraction of time over the entire 
period of a startup operation is necessary to apportion the values 
appropriately and to determine representative average emissions 
concentrations or total mass emissions rate.
    Measuring flow and concentration data in the types of rapidly 
changing exhaust gas conditions characteristic of stationary CI engines 
is unachievable with current technologies applicable to stack emissions 
testing. For example, application of Method 2 to measure stack flow 
rate requires collecting data for velocity pressure and stack 
temperature at each of 12 traverse points and a corresponding stack 
moisture and oxygen concentration (for molecular weight determination). 
This traverse operation requires about 30 minutes to complete to 
produce a single value for the test period, which is approximately the 
same amount of time as the engine startup period. Clearly a single flow 
rate value would not sufficiently represent the variable flow 
conditions nor allow appropriate apportioning of the pollutant 
concentration measurements over that same period for calculating a 
representative average emissions value. Even if the start-up period is 
longer than 30 minutes, the stack flow rate test period could not be 
short enough to represent the short term (e.g., minute-by-minute) 
result necessary for representative emissions calculations. These 
findings lead us to conclude that correlating the flow and 
concentration data as necessary to determine appropriate proportional 
contributions to the emissions rates or concentrations in calculating 
representative emissions over these short highly variable conditions 
with currently available field testing procedures is problematic for 
stationary CI engines. In addition, even were it technically feasible 
to measure emissions during startups for stationary CI engines, the 
cost of doing so for every startup at every covered engine would impose 
a substantial economic burden. There are approximately 936,000 existing 
stationary CI engines that are subject to this rule; the cost for 
testing every one of these engines during engine startup could be more 
than $1 billion.
    EPA is therefore finalizing an operational standard in lieu of a 
numerical emission limit during periods of startup in accordance with 
section 112(h) of the CAA. EPA is limited to the information before it, 
which, of course, includes any information provided by the commenters. 
See 112(d)(3)(A). In this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of the 
information before it, including that provided by commenters, and 
determined that this standard complies with the requirements of 
sections 112(d) and 112(h). The final rule requires that owners and 
operators of stationary engines limit the startup time to 30 minutes or 
less. Engine startup is defined as the time from initial start until 
applied load and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state 
or normal operation. For stationary engine with catalytic controls, 
engine startup means the time from initial start until applied load and 
engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal 
operation, including the catalyst. EPA is also including a requirement 
in the final rule to

[[Page 9666]]

minimize the engine's time spent at idle and minimize the engine's 
startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and safe 
loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the 
otherwise applicable emission standards apply. As with any work 
practice, CAA section 112(h)(3) and EPA's implementing regulations at 
40 CFR 63.6(g) provide that major sources can petition the 
Administrator for approval of an alternative work practice, which must 
be at least as stringent as what is required in the regulation.
    Regarding shutdown, EPA determined that it was not necessary to 
establish different standards that would be applicable during shutdown 
for stationary CI engines. The commenters did not provide any 
information that shows emissions would be higher during shutdown than 
during normal operation. In addition, commenters are incorrect that 
compliance with the standards must be instantaneous. Compliance with 
these emission standards has always been based on the results of 
testing that is conducted over a three-hour period; EPA has made this 
more explicit in this rule. Since the shutdown period for stationary CI 
engines is typically only a matter of minutes, it is believed that even 
if a shutdown occurred during the performance test, the engine would 
still be able to comply with the emission limitation. In a letter dated 
February 17, 2009 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019), EMA indicates that HAP 
emissions will be sufficiently controlled during periods of shutdown. 
EMA stated in its letter that according to manufacturers, emissions 
control equipment would most likely continue to reduce emissions as 
designed throughout the shutdown period. According to EMA, this is 
because engine emissions control systems and equipment are, during the 
start of an engine shutdown, at high enough temperatures to control HAP 
emissions and will continue to be sufficiently high until the engine 
shuts down. This trend is illustrated in the attachment to EMA's 
February 17, 2009, letter to EPA, where EMA provided two graphs with 
sample engine shutdown profiles. Figure 2 of the attachment to EMA's 
letter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019.1) shows catalyst temperatures versus 
minutes during engine shutdown and illustrates stable catalyst 
temperatures.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into 
account startup periods and, for the reasons explained above, has 
established different standards for those periods. With respect to 
malfunctions, EPA proposed two options for subcategories where the 
proposed emission standard was based on the use of catalytic controls. 
The first proposed option was to have the same standards apply during 
normal operation and malfunctions. The second proposed option was that 
standards during malfunctions be based on emissions expected from the 
best controlled sources prior to the full warm-up of the catalytic 
control. For subcategories where the proposed emission standard was not 
based on the use of catalytic controls, we proposed the same emission 
limitations apply during malfunctions and periods of normal operations. 
EPA is finalizing the first option described above, which is that the 
same standards apply during normal operation and malfunctions. In the 
proposed rule, EPA expressed the view that there are different modes of 
operation for any stationary source, and that these modes generally 
include startup, normal operations, shutdown, and malfunctions. 
However, after considering the issue of malfunctions more carefully, 
EPA believes that malfunctions are distinguishable from startup, 
shutdown and normal operations.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that 
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and, 
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 
promulgated, apply at all times. For example, we note that Section 112 
uses the concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the 
level of stringency that major source standards must meet. One 
commenter expressed the view that it is not logical to apply the 
concept of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning. 
Indeed, the goal of best performing sources is to operate in such a way 
as to avoid malfunctions of their units. Similarly, although standards 
for area sources are not required to be set based on ``best 
performers,'' we believe that what is ``generally available'' should 
not be based on periods in which there is a ``failure to operate.''
    Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating 
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into 
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for stationary CI 
engines. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events and it would be difficult to set a standard that 
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, 
degree, and duration, further complicating standard setting.
    Finally, EPA believes that malfunctions will not cause stationary 
CI engines to violate the standard that applies during normal 
operations. Stationary CI engines would in most cases shut down 
immediately or with very little delay in the event of a malfunction. 
Because the standard is expressed as the average of three one-hour 
runs, or a work or management practice, any emissions that occur prior 
to engine shutdown should not affect a source's ability to comply with 
the standard. Commenters' concerns regarding compliance certifications 
should not be a concern for this same reason. This approach will also 
encourage shutdowns as soon as practicable when a malfunction that 
affects emissions occurs. In the unlikely event that a source fails to 
comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of 
a malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based 
on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to 
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative 
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's 
failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, 
``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead 
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    EPA does not agree with the commenter who said that EPA should 
treat SSM emissions as de minimis. It is doubtful whether a de minimis 
exemption is even possible under section 112(d) of the Act in these 
circumstances, see National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 640 (DC 
Cir, 2000), but in any case the commenter provides no specific 
information to justify EPA making such a de minimis finding in this 
instance. Given the very narrow and specific circumstances delineated 
by the court in Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir. 1979) 
for making such a finding, and the lack of specific information from 
the commenter that these circumstances exist in this instance, we do 
not make a de minimis finding.

[[Page 9667]]

E. Emergency Engines

    Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA's proposed definition 
of emergency is not clear as to whether it includes emergency engines 
that operate in emergency demand response (DR) programs. The commenter 
believed that the record on 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, from which 
the proposed rule definition was drawn, clearly indicates that the 40 
CFR part 60, subpart IIII definition was meant to address peak shaving, 
not emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs. Several 
commenters requested that EPA modify the proposed definition of 
emergency engines to enable engines to maintain their status as 
emergency engines, even though the engines that are used in DR programs 
are part of a financial agreement and based on the current definition 
would not be considered emergency engines. Two commenters stated that 
emergency DR programs should not be confused with economic DR programs 
(e.g., peak shaving). Emergency DR programs are initiated by the 
transmission system operators when the threat of power outages is 
imminent and are critical to maintaining available power during periods 
of extreme load on the electric power infrastructure, according to the 
commenters. The events are rare and unplanned, out of the control of 
emergency engine owners/operators, and no power is supplied to the 
grid, but used at the individual facility, the commenter said. The 
commenter said that emergency DR events during the year are typically 
limited to no longer than 2 to 6 hours per event, with the number of 
events per year capped by the regional power pool. The commenter 
believed that, by establishing a subcategory for generators that serve 
facilities participating in a DR program and that only operate 200 hrs/
yr, including any hours operated for maintenance purposes, EPA could 
require maintenance practices, and remove any disincentive that may be 
created over the increased administrative burden and potential post-
combustion control retrofit costs if their emergency stationary RICE 
would be required to be re-characterized as ``non-emergency'' in order 
to participate in DR programs. The commenter suggested that a 100 hour 
operating limit could also be considered as an alternative. Three 
commenters (stated that they receive many benefits from their 
participation in the local DR program, and that they use emergency DR 
events and tests events to replace some of the Joint Commission on 
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations' mandated hospital generator 
tests. According to the commenters the costs that they would have to 
absorb to meet the proposed emission limits would be prohibitive and 
that to require facilities to meet rigid emission limits with very 
little reduction in emissions is not encouraged. Emergency engines are 
used throughout the U.S. and provide vital safety requirements at 
hospitals and healthcare institutions, the commenters said. Commenters 
stated that emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs 
provide a critical service in stabilizing the electric grid on the rare 
occasions when the grid is about to fail. Many States endorse the use 
of emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs, according 
to commenter 82. Two commenters cited various DR programs in the New 
England area that existing engines participate in. A commenter provided 
detailed discussion of several emergency DR programs across the 
country, including States in New England, the Mid Atlantic and Midwest, 
and the South, that are supportive of using emergency engines as part 
of their emergency DR programs, and that accommodate operation of these 
engines through various definitions of emergency, or through 
permitting. The commenter concluded that it is very important that EPA 
not adopt rules that conflict with how much of the U.S. handles 
emergency DR.
    Response: EPA agrees that it would be appropriate to allow 
emergency engines to operate as part of emergency demand response 
programs for a limited number of hours of operation per year in 
situations where grid failure and a blackout are imminent. In the final 
rule, EPA has revised the requirements for emergency engines to reflect 
this.

F. Emissions Data

    Comment: Multiple commenters believe that the emissions data for 
engines is not adequate to conduct an appropriate MACT floor analysis. 
EPA should collect additional data and redo the MACT floor analysis, 
according to numerous commenters. The commenters also stated that EPA 
did not consider emissions variability in setting the MACT floor.
    Commenters stated that the MACT floors should not be based on data 
using single measurements, when three measurements are a standard 
requirement for demonstrating compliance. In the absence of multiple 
measurements, outliers and erroneous errors cannot be caught, according 
to the commenters.
    The commenters said that EPA should use data from units of similar 
size to set standards for sources of the same size, e.g., emissions 
from a large engine should not be used to set standards for a 100 HP 
engine unless EPA can demonstrate that such an assumption is justified. 
The commenters are concerned that the data EPA has used for the MACT 
floor analysis is not representative of the current population of 
engines.
    Commenters criticized the applicability and use of the RICE 
emissions database as representative of the engines being regulated. 
One commenter noted that the 40 ppmvd numerical emissions limit for CO 
appears to be based on 10 tests of only one make and model of engine 
(Caterpillar, Model No. 3508) over a 3-day period in the Research and 
Development Laboratory of CSU in 1999 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-
0006). The commenter states that according to the engine population 
data presented in the impacts document in the docket (Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0798-0028) the promulgated rule would impose limits on more 
than 50,000 CI engines. The commenter believed that basing the limit on 
such a small and unrepresentative sample jeopardizes the accuracy of 
any assumptions made about the operational conditions or performance of 
the regulated population as well as the accuracy of any cost of 
compliance estimates, and leads to an underestimation of the impact of 
the rule.
    Response: Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to set MACT 
standards based on the test data that is available to the Agency and 
this is what EPA did at proposal. EPA recognizes that it had limited 
emissions test data at the time it developed the proposed rule. 
However, EPA notes that it used the data that was available at the time 
of proposal. EPA requested additional test data to supplement the 
emissions database during the development of previous rules for 
stationary engines and also in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
for this rule and did not receive any data. EPA again requested 
additional test data during the comment period for the current engine 
rulemaking and made an additional effort post-proposal to reach out to 
industry and other sources in order to supplement the existing emission 
data set. EPA did receive additional emissions data for stationary CI 
engines during the post-proposal period for this rulemaking. The 
additional data include tests for 11 stationary engines, ranging in 
size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The

[[Page 9668]]

inclusion of this additional data in the MACT floor analysis for the 
final rule addresses the commenters' concerns about using data for one 
large engine to set the MACT floor for smaller engines.
    EPA understands the concerns of commenters with regard to whether 
the MACT floor analysis for the proposed rule took emissions 
variability appropriately into account. EPA took emissions variability 
into account to a greater degree when conducting the MACT floor 
analysis for the final rule. For engines where EPA had data for 
multiple tests on the same engine, EPA used the highest test run 
concentration as the representative emissions for that engine. EPA also 
used the lowest percent reduction observed in determining the percent 
reduction expected from applicable aftertreatment controls in 
determining beyond-the-floor MACT standards. Therefore, the variability 
in emissions from the engine was factored into the MACT floor analysis 
and the beyond-the-floor MACT analysis.
    EPA does not agree that it would be inappropriate to use data from 
one run in setting MACT floors; using the highest run from the testing 
takes into account the variability of emissions.

G. Final Rule Impacts

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the costs are not 
representative of actual costs of implementing the rule and numerous 
commenters said that the proposed rule will have a significant 
financial impact on their sources. According to the commenters, EPA has 
underestimated the cost impacts of the rule by an order of magnitude or 
more. Numerous commenters indicated that EPA has used old, faulty, and 
inappropriate data on the cost of controls, testing, recordkeeping and 
reporting to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. Commenters said 
that EPA should gather current information on the cost of controls and 
redo the cost calculations. The commenters provided specific examples 
of where they believe EPA has used inappropriate cost information. One 
concern expressed was that the cost of oxidation catalyst control for 
diesel engines was based on the cost of oxidation catalyst control for 
gas engines. Commenters also said that not all existing engines have 
hour meters. Commenters believed that EPA has underestimated the total 
cost of this rule by underestimating the number of engines requiring 
the addition of catalyst; assuming that catalysts can simply be added 
to effectively control existing engines; overlooking the significant 
cost of field installation; and underestimating the complexity of and 
administrative/operational burdens added by this rule.
    Several commenters provided comments about the economic impact of 
the rule on emergency units. One commenter stated that overall the cost 
per ton of HAP or CO removal would be excessive for emergency CI 
engines since emissions were well below a ton/yr and the units use is 
very limited and intermittent. Another commenter noted that engine 
manufacturers do not recommend the use of after treatment devices for 
emergency engines, and that EPA appeared to support that position in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which states that cost per ton 
removal of HAP ranged from $1 million to $2.8 million for engines 
larger than 500 HP and from $3.7 million to $8.7 million for engines 
between 50 and 500 HP. One commenter said EPA does not appear to 
consider any costs associated with testing emergency engines, even 
though owners may deem it prudent to test to confirm they are meeting 
the standard rather than risk an enforcement action if the unit does 
not meet the standard. Testing to comply with the 100 percent load 
requirement will require owners to purchase or rent load banks to meet 
the conditions contemplated in the standard, which can cost up to 
$10,000 per site. The load bank costs alone could add up to as much as 
$973 million. In addition, equipment modifications (sample ports) would 
be necessary to test emissions, and EPA has not included these costs in 
its calculations.
    One commenter said that the proposed rule for existing CI engines 
greater than 300 HP at area sources is cost prohibitive for facilities 
with peak shaving engines with low operating hours. The commenter 
estimated that the cost per ton of HAP removed from these units would 
range from $200,000 to $1 million, similar to the cost for emergency 
generators.
    While reducing HAP is an important goal, one commenter believed 
that the overbroad approach taken by EPA in subjecting all the RICE 
equipment in question to the requirements proposed, regardless of 
whether the equipment is located in urban or rural areas, particularly 
when considering the Congressional intent of reducing HAP in urban 
areas given the potential risks to public health, and the imposition of 
costs in excess of $528 million to reduce 13,000 tons of HAP a year 
(i.e., a cost of $40,615 per ton) should be carefully scrutinized.
    One commenter noted an additional concern with the proposed rule is 
the potential impact of parasitic load resulting from the use of 
catalytic diesel particulate filters (CDPF) and oxidation catalysts. 
Some back pressure penalty is associated with the use of both CDPF and 
oxidation catalysts methods to control HAP, the back pressure can 
increase with time, which may require regeneration of the catalyst or 
changing filters. The commenter believed that for those utilities that 
operate RICE with only marginal excess capacity, addition of either 
type of control could require installation of additional RICE capacity 
to maintain the needed reliability level. The commenter noted that it 
will not be possible to design around the pressure drop for existing 
engines and that the penalty should have been addressed and included by 
EPA in the cost assessment of retrofit and operation for the control 
devices.
    Another commenter indicated that EPA's estimates are low for the 
capital and operating costs associated with the use of catalytic 
control, and are based on pricing data from one vendor and a limited 
number of data points. The commenter asserted that EPA's capital 
estimate and annual operating cost estimate for catalytic controls are 
each low by an order of magnitude of 2 to 3. The commenter also stated 
that because beyond-the-floor standards (which require catalytic 
controls) are based on the cost per ton of HAP removed and EPA 
significantly underestimated capital and operating costs of catalytic 
controls, EPA must reanalyze the proposed rule with better cost data to 
determine when catalysts are economically practical.
    One commenter said the cost information contained in the docket for 
test costs is not representative of the sampling costs required to 
comply with the standards as proposed. Members of the commenter's 
organization indicated that the cost per sample run using Methods 1, 3, 
4, and 10 could easily exceed $10,000, excluding costs to prepare for 
the sampling (i.e., scaffolding, stack extensions, etc.). In addition 
to these cost considerations, as a practical matter, there would be 
significant difficulty in performing these EPA test methods on engine 
exhaust.
    The commenter claimed that EPA has proposed compliance requirements 
that are more stringent than GACT requirements or management practices 
and that EPA has decided to institute MACT. However, even under MACT 
EPA can consider cost and energy impacts. The commenter disagreed with 
EPA's conclusion in the RIA that the rule will not likely have a 
significant impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 
commenter said that the proposed standards could have a

[[Page 9669]]

very detrimental impact on energy reliability, and many units may have 
to be shut down due to the cost of compliance.
    Response: EPA used the information it had available at the time of 
proposal to estimate the cost impacts associated with the rule. This 
information included cost data obtained for the development of previous 
stationary engine rulemakings, which EPA believed would be appropriate 
to use for this rulemaking. Based on the significant number of comments 
received on the proposed rule costs, EPA revisited its cost analysis 
and assumptions underlying the proposed rule and revised that analysis 
and assumptions in the final rule.
    EPA has made several attempts to obtain more current cost 
information, including through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
for this rule. EPA agrees with the commenters that it is inappropriate 
to base the cost for a diesel oxidation catalyst on the costs for 
oxidation catalysts for spark ignition engines. Therefore, EPA has 
based the catalyst cost estimate in the final rule on cost data for 
diesel oxidation catalysts obtained from a CARB study. More information 
on the cost estimate can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Control 
Costs for Existing Stationary CI RICE.'' The cost estimates are based 
on the use of diesel oxidation catalyst rather than CDPF because we 
believe that sources will choose to use oxidation catalyst control 
because they are less costly than CDPF and achieve similar reduction in 
HAP. Based on a reanalysis of the MACT floor data and above-the-floor 
options, taking variability into account, the final rule requires 
engines equipped with catalysts to achieve 70 percent reduction rather 
than the 90 percent that was proposed.
    Regarding the comment that catalysts cannot be added to existing 
engines, the commenter did not provide any information to show what 
engines would not be able to be retrofit. Regarding the concerns 
expressed about backpressure increases, the commenter did not provide 
any data to support the claim that the backpressure increases are so 
high that they would severely impact the engine output.
    EPA does not agree with the claim that the rule will put a strain 
on hospitals. The stationary diesel engines at hospitals are typically 
emergency engines and EPA has determined that emergency engines located 
at institutional facilities such as hospitals that are area sources are 
not part of the listed source category and are therefore not subject to 
the final rule. EPA does not agree with the commenters that it is not 
appropriate to require peaking units and stationary diesel engines that 
are located in rural areas to install controls. This is discussed in 
more detail in the summary of comments and responses. EPA has specified 
in the final rule that performance testing is not limited to 100 
percent load, so it should not be necessary to include the cost of a 
load bank in the performance testing cost. EPA has incorporated the 
costs for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the cost 
analysis and believes that its estimates for these costs are 
appropriate. The costs for testing are based on information from source 
testing companies. As a result of the comments on testing costs, EPA 
reevaluated the estimate of how many engines could be tested in a 
single day and determined that two engines could be tested at a 
facility in one day, rather than three as was estimated in the 
proposal.
    Regarding the concerns expressed by the commenters about the impact 
of the rule on emergency engines, the final rule requires existing 
stationary emergency engines to meet work practice or management 
practice standards, rather than numeric emission limitations; these 
work practices and management practices do not require that these 
engines be retrofit with aftertreatment controls or be performance 
tested to determine compliance. Information provided to EPA by engine 
manufacturers indicates that most engines are already equipped with an 
hour meter; therefore, EPA did not add this cost into the rule. EPA 
does not believe that the final rule will cause owners/operators to 
replace their emergency engines. The final rule imposes work or 
management practices on these engines, which EPA believes will not be 
overly burdensome to facilities and will not cause the retirement of 
existing stationary emergency engines.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The final rule is expected to reduce total HAP emissions from 
stationary RICE by 1,010 tons per year (tpy) beginning in the year 2013 
or the first year the rule will become effective. EPA estimates that 
over 900,000 stationary CI engines will be subject to the rule. These 
estimates include stationary engines located at major and area sources; 
however, not all stationary engines are subject to numerical emission 
standards. Further information regarding the estimated reductions of 
the final rule can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Impacts 
Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary RICE,'' which is 
available in the docket.
    In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the final rule will reduce 
other pollutants such as CO, PM, SOX, and volatile organic 
compounds (VOC). The final rule is expected to reduce emissions of CO 
by 14,000 tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM are estimated at 2,800 
tpy in the year 2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated to be reduced by 
27,000 tpy in the year 2013. The final rule will also reduce emissions 
of SOX through the use of ULSD. We have not quantified the 
SOX reductions that would occur as a result of engines 
switching to ULSD because we are unable to estimate the number of 
engines that already use ULSD and therefore we are unable to estimate 
the percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD due to this rule. If 
none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then we 
estimate the SOX reductions are 31,000 tpy in the year 2013. 
If all of the affected engines would use ULSD regardless of the rule, 
then the additional SOX reductions would be zero.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    The total national capital cost for the final rule for existing 
stationary RICE is estimated to be $744 million, with a total national 
annual cost of $373 million in year 2013 (the first year the rule is 
implemented). Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts 
of this proposed rule can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Impacts 
Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE,'' which is 
available in the docket.

C. What are the benefits?

    We calculated the benefits of this rule in terms of the co-benefits 
associated with reducing fine particulate matter (PM) rather than 
calculating the benefits associated with reducing hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs). These PM reductions are a consequence of the 
technologies installed to reduce HAP emissions from RICE. We estimate 
the monetized PM2.5 co-benefits of this final regulatory 
action to be $940 million to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3 percent discount 
rate) in the fifth year (2013). The PM2.5 co-benefits at a 7 
percent discount rate are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Because 
the magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is largely driven by 
the concentration-response function for premature mortality, we 
examined alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 
mortality supplied by

[[Page 9670]]

experts. Higher and lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most 
of the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates 
above.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Roman 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the monetized co-benefits estimates at discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 4 of this preamble.

               Table 4--Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits Estimates for Final RICE NESHAP
                                               [Millions of 2008$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Emission
                Pollutant                   reductions        Total monetized co-         Total monetized co-
                                              (tons)        benefits (3% discount)      benefits (7% discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5............................           2,844  $910 to $2,200............  $820 to $2,000.
PM2.5 Precursors:
    VOC.................................          27,395  $33 to $82................  $30 to $74.
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................  ..............  $940 to $2,300............  $850 to $2,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All estimates are for the analysis year (the fifth year), and are rounded to two significant figures so
  numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the
  benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different
  propensity to form PM2.5. We assume that all PM reductions for this rule are PM2.5 reductions. Benefits from
  reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included.

    The benefits estimates of population-level improvements to human 
health from reductions in PM2.5 air pollution. We generated 
estimates that represent the total monetized human health co-benefits 
(the sum of premature mortality and morbidity) of reducing a ton of 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. We base the 
estimate of human health co-benefits derived from the PM2.5 
and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions on the general 
approach and methodology laid out in the Technical Support Document 
that accompanied the RIA for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard for Ground-level Ozone (NAAQS) and Fann et al. (2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fann, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to 
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors into changes in PM2.5 air quality and another 
model to estimate the changes in human health based on that change in 
air quality. Finally, the monetized health co-benefits were divided by 
the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. Even 
though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health 
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because 
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form 
PM2.5. For example, SOX has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not form as 
much PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the 
monetized health co-benefits would be lower.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for 
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of 
assumptions, including estimates based both on empirical 
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific 
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between 
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this final 
rule we cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American 
Cancer Society cohort study \6\ and the extended Six Cities cohort 
study.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pope 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.
    \7\ Laden et al, 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA strives to use the best available science to support our 
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science 
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. The 
question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating the co-
benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an issue 
that affects the benefits calculations for many EPA rulemakings and 
analyses. Due to these implications, we solicited comment on 
appropriateness of both the no-threshold and threshold model for PM 
benefits analysis as part of the Portland Cement NESHAP (May 2009). The 
comment period closed on September 4, 2009, and EPA is still reviewing 
those comments. Since then, EPA finalized the Integrated Science 
Assessment for Particulate Matter,\8\ which was reviewed by EPA's Clean 
Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Based on EPA's review of the body of 
scientific literature and the Integrated Science Assessment, EPA has 
concluded that the no-threshold model most adequately portrays the 
relationship between fine particles and premature mortality. Although 
this document does not necessarily represent agency policy, it provides 
a basis for reconsidering the application of thresholds in 
PM2.5 concentration-response functions used in EPA's RIAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM2.5 co-benefits for the incremental emission 
reductions from this final regulatory action reflect EPA's most current 
interpretation of the scientific literature, including four key changes 
from previous analyses for refineries: (1) A no-threshold model for 
PM2.5 that calculates incremental co-benefits down to the 
lowest modeled air quality levels; (2) a revised Value of a Statistical 
Life (VSL); (3) two technical updates to the population dataset and 
aggregation method; and (4) presentation of results derived from Pope 
et al. (2002) and Laden et al. (2006) instead of using the extremes of 
EPA's Expert Elicitation on PM Mortality (Roman et al., 2008). For more 
information on the updates to the benefit estimates, please refer to 
the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket.
    It should be noted that the PM2.5 co-benefits estimates 
provided above do not include benefits from reduced hazardous air 
pollutants, improved

[[Page 9671]]

visibility, reduced aquatic and terrestrial acidification. The benefits 
from reducing 1,014 tons of HAPs each year have not been monetized in 
this analysis. We do not have sufficient information or modeling 
available to provide such estimates for this rulemaking. In addition, 
we have not quantified the benefits attributable to the SO2 
reductions that would occur as a result of these engines switching to 
ULSD. Although we are confident that some SO2 reductions 
would occur as a result of this rule, we are unable to estimate the 
percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD in the absence of this 
rule or the number of engines that already use ULSD. As a 
PM2.5 precursor, these SO2 emission reductions 
would lead to fewer PM2.5-related health effects. Because of 
uncertainty in the magnitude of the attributable SO2 
reductions and to avoid the appearance of double-counting, we have 
chosen to not include these estimates in the results table shown above. 
If none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then 
we estimate the additional monetized PM2.5-related health 
co-benefits would be $720 million to $1.8 billion in 2013 (2008$, 3% 
discount rate). If all of the affected engines would use ULSD 
regardless of the rule, then the additional monetized co-benefits from 
SO2 reductions would be zero.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty 
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack 
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits 
model. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of 
alternative concentration response functions, including those derived 
from the PM expert elicitation study.
    The costs of this rulemaking are estimated to be $373 million 
(2008$) in the fifth year, and the monetized PM2.5 co-
benefits are estimated at $940 million to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3 
percent discount rate) for that same year. The co-benefits at a 7 
percent discount rate are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Thus, 
net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $570 million to $1.9 
billion (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $480 million to $1.7 
billion (2008$, 7 percent discount rate). Using alternate relationships 
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, 
higher and lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the 
expert-based estimates fall between the two estimates we present above. 
EPA believes that the co-benefits are likely to exceed the costs even 
when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit 
estimates.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis (EIA) that is included in the RIA 
indicates that prices of affected output from the affected industries 
will increase as a result of the rule, but the changes will be small. 
The largest impacts are on the electric power generating industry 
because it bears more costs from the rule than any other affected 
industry (nearly 80 percent of the total annualized costs). For all 
affected industries, annualized compliance costs are 0.6 percent or 
less on average of sales for firms. Thus, output prices will not 
increase more than 0.6 percent for consumers and producers affected by 
this rule.
    Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with this rule 
and the predicted changes in prices and output in affected markets, the 
estimated social costs are $373 million (2008 dollars), which is the 
same as the estimated compliance costs.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

E. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy impacts?

    EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health, 
environmental or energy impacts as a result of the final rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant 
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities.
    Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information collection activities in this final rule include 
performance testing for non-emergency engines larger than 100 HP, one-
time notifications and periodic reports, recording information, 
monitoring and the maintenance of records. The information generated by 
these activities will be used by EPA to ensure that affected facilities 
comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and 
reports are necessary to enable EPA or States to identify affected 
facilities that may not be in compliance with the requirements. Based 
on reported information, EPA will decide which units and what records 
or processes should be inspected. The amendments do not require any 
notifications or reports beyond those required by the General 
Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific 
information needed to determine compliance. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies 
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after sources must comply) 
is estimated to be 2,232,379 labor hours per year at a total annual 
cost of $4,200,492. This estimate includes notifications of compliance 
and performance tests, engine performance testing, semiannual 
compliance reports, continuous monitoring, and recordkeeping. The total 
capital costs associated with the requirements over the 3-year period 
of the ICR is estimated to be $20,444,316 per year. There are no 
additional operation and maintenance costs for the requirements over 
the 3-year period of the ICR. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical

[[Page 9672]]

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB 
control number for the approved information collection requirements 
contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. The companies owning facilities with 
affected RICE can be grouped into small and large categories using 
Small Business Administration (SBA) general size standard definitions. 
Size standards are based on industry classification codes (i.e., North 
American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS) that each company 
uses to identify the industry or industries in which they operate in. 
The SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment, 
annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for electricity 
generating units--EGUs) of the owning entity. These thresholds vary by 
industry and are evaluated based on the primary industry classification 
of the affected companies. In cases where companies are classified by 
multiple NAICS codes, the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the 
NAICS code with the highest employee or revenue size standard) was 
used.
    As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across several 
industries use affected RICE; therefore, a number of size standards are 
utilized in this analysis. For the 9 industries identified at the 6-
digit NAICS code represented in this analysis, the employment size 
standard varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The annual sales standard 
is as low as 0.75 million dollars and as high as 34 million dollars. In 
addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small 
business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as having a 
total electric output of 4 million 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 final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
certification is based on the economic impact of this final action to 
all affected small entities across all industries affected. We estimate 
that all small entities will have annualized costs of less than 1 
percent of their sales in all industries except NAICS 2211 (electric 
power generation, transmission, and distribution) and NAICS 111 (Crop 
and Animal Production). For these industries, the number of small 
entities having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of their 
sales is less than 5 percent. Hence, we conclude that there is no 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
(SISNOSE) for this rule.
    For more information on the small entity impacts associated with 
the final rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small Business 
Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be found in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule.
    Although the final rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried 
to reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities. When 
developing the revised standards, EPA took special steps to ensure that 
the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. EPA conducted 
several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss regulatory 
options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping 
and reporting. In this rule, we are applying the minimum level of 
control (i.e., the MACT floor) to small engines and emergency engines 
located at major HAP sources and the minimum level of testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to affected RICE sources, both 
major and area, allowed by the CAA. Other alternatives considered that 
provided more than the minimum level of control were deemed as not 
technically feasible or cost-effective for EPA to implement for small 
engines and emergency engines as explained earlier in the preamble.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This final 
rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, EPA has 
prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is 
summarized below.
    As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority 
for the final rule is section 112 of the CAA. Section 112(b) lists the 
189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by Congress to 
be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP. 
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP based on MACT, 
which require existing and new major sources to control emissions of 
HAP. EPA is required to address HAP emissions from stationary RICE 
located at area sources under section 112(k) of the CAA, based on 
criteria set forth by EPA in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy previously 
discussed in this preamble. These NESHAP apply to existing stationary 
CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources of HAP 
emissions, existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE greater than 300 
HP, and existing stationary CI RICE located at area sources of HAP 
emissions.
    In compliance with section 205(a), we identified and considered a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. EPA carefully examined 
the regulatory alternatives, and selected the lowest cost/least 
burdensome alternative that EPA deems adequate to achieve the statutory 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 112 and effectively reduce 
emissions of HAP.
1. Social Costs and Benefits
    The RIA prepared for the final rule, including the Agency's 
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on 
estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the final 
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected 
industries assuming passthrough of costs to affected consumers, the 
estimated social costs of the final rule are $373 million (2008 
dollars). It is estimated that by 2013, HAP will be reduced by 1,010 
tpy

[[Page 9673]]

due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and 
other HAP from existing stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde 
have been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein and 
the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several 
other toxic effects. The final rule is expected to reduce emissions of 
CO by more than 14,000 tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM are 
estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year 2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated 
to be reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year 2013. Exposure to CO can affect 
the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system.
    The total monetized benefits of the final rule range from $940 
million to $2.3 billion (2008 dollars).
2. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is 
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and 
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future 
compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in this 
preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate 
budgetary effects of the final rule on any particular areas of the 
country, State or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, 
rural), or particular industry segments.
3. Effects on the National Economy
    The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the final rule on 
the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the 
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of 
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods 
and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably 
feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide 
economic impact of the final rule is presented in the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This analysis provides 
estimates of the effect of the final rule on most of the categories 
mentioned above. The results of the economic impact analysis were 
summarized previously in this preamble. In addition, we have determined 
that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule primarily affects 
private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on 
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 
technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse impact on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. EPA has prepared an analysis of energy 
impacts that explains this conclusion as follows below.
    With respect to energy supply and prices, our analysis suggests 
that at the industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small 
fraction of revenue (generally less than 0.6 percent). As a result, we 
can conclude supply and price impacts on affected energy producers and 
consumers should be small.
    To enhance understanding regarding the regulation's influence on 
energy consumption, we examined publicly available data describing 
energy consumption for the electric power sector. The electric power 
sector is expected to incur about 80 percent of the $373 million in 
compliance costs associated with the final rule, and is the industry 
expected to incur the greatest share of the costs relative to other 
affected industries. The Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (EIA, 2009) 
provides energy consumption data. Since this final rule only affects 
diesel-fired RICE, our analysis focuses on impacts of consumption of 
these fuels. As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, the electric power 
sector accounts for less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. total liquid 
fuels (which includes diesel fuel). As a result, any energy consumption 
changes attributable to the final rule should not significantly 
influence the supply, distribution, or use of energy nationwide.

        Table 5--U.S. Electric Power a Sector Energy Consumption
                        [Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Share of total
                                             Quantity       energy use
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillate fuel oil.....................            0.12             0.1
Residual fuel oil.......................            0.34             0.3
Liquid fuels subtotal...................            0.45             0.5
Natural gas.............................            5.17             5.1
Steam coal..............................           20.69            20.6
Nuclear power...........................            8.59             8.5
Renewable energy \b\....................            6.06             6.0

[[Page 9674]]


Electricity Imports.....................            0.09             0.1
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Electric Power Energy                    41.18            40.9
     Consumption \c\....................
                                         -------------------------------
Delivered Energy Use....................           72.41            72.0
                                         ===============================
    Total Energy Use....................          100.59           100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat
  and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or
  electricity and heat, to the public. Includes small power producers
  and exempt wholesale generators.
\b\ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood
  waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, other biomass, petroleum coke,
  wind, photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. Excludes net electricity
  imports.
\c\ Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental
  Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Under Sec.  63.7(f) and Sec.  63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required or referenced testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This rule is a nationwide standard that reduces air 
toxics emissions from existing stationary CI engines, thus decreasing 
the amount of such emissions to which all affected populations are 
exposed.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The final rule will be effective on May 3, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.6590 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.6590  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) An affected source which meets either of the criteria in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section does not have to meet 
the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part except 
for the initial notification requirements of Sec.  63.6645(f).
* * * * *
    (3) A stationary RICE which is an existing spark ignition 4 stroke 
rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP 
emissions; an existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions; an existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn (2SLB) 
stationary RICE; an existing spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB) 
stationary RICE; an existing compression ignition emergency stationary 
RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a

[[Page 9675]]

major source of HAP emissions; an existing spark ignition emergency or 
limited use stationary RICE; an existing limited use stationary RICE 
with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions; an existing stationary RICE that combusts landfill 
gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat 
input on an annual basis; or an existing stationary residential, 
commercial, or institutional emergency stationary RICE located at an 
area source of HAP emissions, does not have to meet the requirements of 
this subpart and of subpart A of this part. No initial notification is 
necessary.
* * * * *


0
3. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6595  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding existing 
non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of more than 500 
brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply 
with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations no 
later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency CI 
stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at 
a major source of HAP emissions, an existing stationary CI RICE with a 
site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major 
source of HAP emissions, or an existing stationary CI RICE located at 
an area source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the applicable 
emission limitations and operating limitations no later than May 3, 
2013.
* * * * *


0
4. Section 63.6600 is amended by adding an introductory paragraph, 
revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6600  What emission limitations and operating limitations must 
I meet if I own or operate a stationary RICE with a site rating of more 
than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions?

    Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in 
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.  
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) If you own or operate any of the following stationary RICE with 
a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of 
HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations 
in Tables 1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart or operating limitations 
in Tables 1b and 2b to this subpart: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE; 
an existing 4SLB stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that combusts 
landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 
gross heat input on an annual basis; an emergency stationary RICE; or a 
limited use stationary RICE.
    (d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency stationary CI 
RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major 
source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations 
in Table 2c to this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2b 
to this subpart which apply to you.


0
5. Section 63.6601 is amended by adding a sentence at the beginning of 
the section to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6601  What emission limitations must I meet if I own or 
operate a 4SLB stationary RICE with a site rating of greater than or 
equal to 250 brake HP and less than 500 brake HP located at a major 
source of HAP emissions?

    Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in 
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.  
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. * * *


0
6. Section 63.6602 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6602  What emission limitations must I meet if I own or 
operate an existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of equal to 
or less than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions?

    If you own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE with a site 
rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in 
Table 2c to this subpart which apply to you. Compliance with the 
numerical emission limitations established in this subpart is based on 
the results of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the 
testing requirements and procedures in Sec.  63.6620 and Table 4 to 
this subpart.


0
7. Section 63.6603 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6603  What emission limitations and operating limitations must 
I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE located at an 
area source of HAP emissions?

    Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in 
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.  
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
    (a) If you own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE located at 
an area source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the requirements 
in Table 2d to this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2b 
to this subpart which apply to you.
    (b) If you own or operate an existing stationary non-emergency CI 
RICE greater than 300 HP located at area sources in areas of Alaska not 
accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) you do not have to 
meet the numerical CO emission limitations specified in Table 2d to 
this subpart. Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 
300 HP located at area sources in areas of Alaska not accessible by the 
FAHS must meet the management practices that are shown for stationary 
non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d to this 
subpart.


0
8. Section 63.6604 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 non-emergency 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 not accessible by the FAHS are exempt 
from the requirements of this section.


0
9. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.6605  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and 
operating limitations in this subpart that apply to you at all times.
    (b) At all times you must operate and maintain any affected source, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to 
minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to

[[Page 9676]]

reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance 
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *


0
10. Section 63.6612 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6612  By what date must I conduct the initial performance 
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations if I own or operate an 
existing stationary RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions or an existing 
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?

    If you own or operate an existing CI stationary RICE with a site 
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions or an existing stationary CI RICE located at an area 
source of HAP emissions you are subject to the requirements of this 
section.
    (a) You must conduct any initial performance test or other initial 
compliance demonstration according to Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart 
that apply to you within 180 days after the compliance date that is 
specified for your stationary RICE in Sec.  63.6595 and according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial 
performance test on a unit for which a performance test has been 
previously conducted, but the test must meet all of the conditions 
described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The test must have been conducted using the same methods 
specified in this subpart, and these methods must have been followed 
correctly.
    (2) The test must not be older than 2 years.
    (3) The test must be reviewed and accepted by the Administrator.
    (4) Either no process or equipment changes must have been made 
since the test was performed, or the owner or operator must be able to 
demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process or 
equipment changes.


0
11. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.6620  What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this subpart. If 
you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE that is subject to 
performance testing, you do not need to start up the engine solely to 
conduct the performance test. Owners and operators of a non-operational 
engine can conduct the performance test when the engine is started up 
again.
    (c) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    12. Section 63.6625 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding new paragraphs (e) through (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6625  What are my monitoring, installation, collection, 
operation, and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (e) If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a site 
rating of less than 100 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 
emissions, an existing stationary emergency RICE, or an existing 
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions not subject 
to any numerical emission standards shown in Table 2d to this subpart, 
you must operate and maintain the stationary RICE and after-treatment 
control device (if any) according to the manufacturer's emission-
related written instructions or develop your own maintenance plan which 
must provide to the extent practicable for the maintenance and 
operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practice for minimizing emissions.
    (f) If you own or operate an existing emergency stationary RICE 
with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a 
major source of HAP emissions or an existing emergency stationary RICE 
located at an area source of HAP emissions, you must install a non-
resettable hour meter if one is not already installed.
    (g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI engine 
greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not equipped with a closed 
crankcase ventilation system, you must comply with either paragraph 
(g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this section. Owners and operators must 
follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance requirements for 
operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase ventilation 
systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request the 
Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that are as 
protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines located at 
area sources in areas of Alaska not accessible by the FAHS do not have 
to meet the requirements of paragraph (g) in this section.
    (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents 
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or
    (2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control system 
that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the exhaust 
stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.
    (h) If you operate a new or existing stationary engine, you must 
minimize the engine's time spent at idle during startup and minimize 
the engine's startup time to a period needed for appropriate and safe 
loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the 
emission standards applicable to all times other than startup in Tables 
1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart apply.
    (i) If you own or operate a stationary engine that is subject to 
the work, operation or management practices in items 1, 2, or 4 of 
Table 2c to this subpart or in items 1 or 4 of Table 2d to this 
subpart, you have the option of utilizing an oil analysis program in 
order to extend the specified oil change requirement in Tables 2c and 
2d to this subpart. The oil analysis must be performed at the same 
frequency specified for changing the oil in Table 2c or 2d to this 
subpart. The analysis program must at a minimum analyze the following 
three parameters: Total Base Number, viscosity, and percent water 
content. The condemning limits for these parameters are as follows: 
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total Base Number of 
the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 
percent from the viscosity of the oil when new; or percent water 
content (by volume) is greater than 0.5. If all of these condemning 
limits are not exceeded, the engine owner or operator is not required 
to change the oil. If any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner 
or operator must change the oil before continuing to use the engine. 
The owner or operator must keep records of the parameters that are 
analyzed as part of the program, the results of the analysis, and the 
oil changes for the engine. The analysis program must be part of the 
maintenance plan for the engine.

0
13. Section 63.6640 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (a);
0
(b) Revising paragraph (b);
0
(c) Revising paragraph (d);

[[Page 9677]]

0
(d) Revising paragraph (e); and
0
(e) Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6640  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations and operating limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation and operating limitation in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 
2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according 
to methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 
2a and 2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you. 
These instances are deviations from the emission and operating 
limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6650. If you change your 
catalyst, you must reestablish the values of the operating parameters 
measured during the initial performance test. When you reestablish the 
values of your operating parameters, you must also conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate that you are meeting the required 
emission limitation applicable to your stationary RICE.
* * * * *
    (d) For new, reconstructed, and rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations 
from the emission or operating limitations that occur during the first 
200 hours of operation from engine startup (engine burn-in period) are 
not violations. Rebuilt stationary RICE means a stationary RICE that 
has been rebuilt as that term is defined in 40 CFR 94.11(a).
    (e) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet 
the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you. If you 
own or operate a new or reconstructed stationary RICE with a site 
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions (except new or reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than 
or equal to 250 and less than or equal to 500 brake HP), a new or 
reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP 
emissions, or any of the following RICE with a site rating of more than 
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you do not 
need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart: An 
existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an 
existing emergency stationary RICE, an existing limited use stationary 
RICE, or an existing stationary RICE which fires landfill gas or 
digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input 
on an annual basis. If you own or operate any of the following RICE 
with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source 
of HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the requirements in 
Table 8 to this subpart, except for the initial notification 
requirements: a new or reconstructed stationary RICE that combusts 
landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 
gross heat input on an annual basis, a new or reconstructed emergency 
stationary RICE, or a new or reconstructed limited use stationary RICE.
    (f) If you own or operate an existing emergency stationary RICE 
with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a 
major source of HAP emissions, a new emergency stationary RICE with a 
site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 
emissions that was installed on or after June 12, 2006, or an existing 
emergency stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, 
you must operate the engine according to the conditions described in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) For owners and operators of emergency engines, any operation 
other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, and operation 
in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, as permitted in this 
section, is prohibited.
    (2) There is no time limit on the use of emergency stationary RICE 
in emergency situations.
    (3) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for the purpose 
of maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests 
are recommended by Federal, State or local government, the 
manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the 
engine. Maintenance checks and readiness testing of such units is 
limited to 100 hours per year. The owner or operator may petition the 
Administrator for approval of additional hours to be used for 
maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a petition is not 
required if the owner or operator maintains records indicating that 
Federal, State, or local standards require maintenance and testing of 
emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per year.
    (4) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE up to 50 hours 
per year in non-emergency situations, but those 50 hours are counted 
towards the 100 hours per year provided for maintenance and testing. 
The 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for 
peak shaving or to generate income for a facility to supply power to an 
electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial 
arrangement with another entity; except that owners and operators may 
operate the emergency engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part 
of a demand response program if the regional transmission organization 
or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has 
determined there are emergency conditions that could lead to a 
potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency, 
equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable 
voltage level. The engine may not be operated for more than 30 minutes 
prior to the time when the emergency condition is expected to occur, 
and the engine operation must be terminated immediately after the 
facility is notified that the emergency condition is no longer 
imminent. The 15 hours per year of demand response operation are 
counted as part of the 50 hours of operation per year provided for non-
emergency situations. The supply of emergency power to another entity 
or entities pursuant to financial arrangement is not limited by this 
paragraph (f)(4), as long as the power provided by the financial 
arrangement is limited to emergency power.

0
14. Section 63.6645 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6645  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) 
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and 
(h) that apply to you by the dates specified if you own or operate any 
of the following;
    (1) An existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than 
or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (2) An existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 
emissions.
    (3) A stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 
located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (4) A new or reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE with a site rating 
of greater than or equal to 250 HP located at a major source of HAP 
emissions.
    (5) This requirement does not apply if you own or operate an 
existing stationary CI RICE less than 100 HP, an existing stationary 
emergency CI RICE, or an existing stationary CI RICE that is not 
subject to any numerical emission standards.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.6650 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 9678]]

Sec.  63.6650  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 7 of this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(9) of this section.
    (1) For semiannual Compliance reports, the first Compliance report 
must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is 
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.6595 and ending on June 
30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end 
of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified 
for your source in Sec.  63.6595.
    (2) For semiannual Compliance reports, the first Compliance report 
must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, 
whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.6595.
    (3) For semiannual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance 
report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 
through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through 
December 31.
    (4) For semiannual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance 
report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 
31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the 
semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each stationary RICE that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A), 
you may submit the first and subsequent Compliance reports according to 
the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according 
to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
    (6) For annual Compliance reports, the first Compliance report must 
cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.6595 and ending on December 31.
    (7) For annual Compliance reports, the first Compliance report must 
be postmarked or delivered no later than January 31 following the end 
of the first calendar year after the compliance date that is specified 
for your affected source in Sec.  63.6595.
    (8) For annual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance 
report must cover the annual reporting period from January 1 through 
December 31.
    (9) For annual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance 
report must be postmarked or delivered no later than January 31.
    (c) * * *
    (4) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the 
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief 
description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the 
reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable 
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.6605(b), including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction.
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.6655 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
(b) Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
(c) Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
(d) Adding paragraph (a)(5);
0
(e) Adding paragraph (e); and
0
(f) Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6655  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, 
you must keep the records described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(5), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (2) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment.
    (3) * * *
    (4) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
    (5) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.6605(b), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.
* * * * *
    (e) You must keep records of the maintenance conducted on the 
stationary RICE in order to demonstrate that you operated and 
maintained the stationary RICE and after-treatment control device (if 
any) according to your own maintenance plan if you own or operate any 
of the following stationary RICE;
    (1) An existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than 
100 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (2) An existing stationary emergency CI RICE.
    (3) An existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 
emissions subject to management practices as shown in Table 2d to this 
subpart.
    (f) If you own or operate any of the stationary RICE in paragraphs 
(f)(1) or (2) of this section, you must keep records of the hours of 
operation of the engine that is recorded through the non-resettable 
hour meter. The owner or operator must document how many hours are 
spent for emergency operation, including what classified the operation 
as emergency and how many hours are spent for non-emergency operation. 
If the engines are used for demand response operation, the owner or 
operator must keep records of the notification of the emergency 
situation, and the time the engine was operated as part of demand 
response.
    (1) An existing emergency stationary CI RICE with a site rating of 
less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 
emissions that does not meet the standards applicable to non-emergency 
engines.
    (2) An existing emergency stationary CI RICE located at an area 
source of HAP emissions that does not meet the standards applicable to 
non-emergency engines.

0
17. Section 63.6660 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6660  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (c) You must keep each record readily accessible in hard copy or 
electronic form for at least 5 years after the date of each occurrence, 
measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, 
according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).

0
18. Section 63.6665 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6665  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If you own or operate a 
new or reconstructed stationary RICE with a site rating of less than or 
equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions 
(except new or reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than or equal to 250 
and less than or equal

[[Page 9679]]

to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed stationary RICE located at an 
area source of HAP emissions, or any of the following RICE with a site 
rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 
emissions, you do not need to comply with any of the requirements of 
the General Provisions specified in Table 8: An existing 2SLB 
stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing 
stationary RICE that combusts landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, an existing 
emergency stationary RICE, or an existing limited use stationary RICE. 
If you own or operate any of the following RICE with a site rating of 
more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you 
do not need to comply with the requirements in the General Provisions 
specified in Table 8 except for the initial notification requirements: 
A new stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual 
basis, a new emergency stationary RICE, or a new limited use stationary 
RICE.

0
19. Section 63.6675 is amended:
0
(a) By revising the definition of Diesel fuel;
0
(b) By revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE;
0
(c) By adding the definition of Black start engine;
0
(d) By adding the definition of Engine startup; and
0
(e) By adding the definition of Residential/commercial/institutional 
emergency stationary RICE, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6675  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Black start engine means an engine whose only purpose is to start 
up a combustion turbine.
* * * * *
    Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained from the distillation of 
petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees 
Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2. Diesel fuel also 
includes any non-distillate fuel with comparable physical and chemical 
properties (e.g. biodiesel) that is suitable for use in compression 
ignition engines.
* * * * *
    Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary internal combustion 
engine whose operation is limited to emergency situations and required 
testing and maintenance. Examples include stationary ICE used to 
produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power 
supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local 
utility (or the normal power source, if the facility runs on its own 
power production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 
in the case of fire or flood, etc. Stationary CI ICE used for peak 
shaving are not considered emergency stationary ICE. Stationary CI ICE 
used to supply power to an electric grid or that supply non-emergency 
power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity are not 
considered to be emergency engines, except as permitted under Sec.  
63.6640(f). Emergency stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than 
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions that were 
installed prior to June 12, 2006, may be operated for the purpose of 
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are 
recommended by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company 
associated with the engine. Required testing of such units should be 
minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of emergency 
stationary RICE in emergency situations and for routine testing and 
maintenance. Emergency stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than 
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions that were 
installed prior to June 12, 2006, may also operate an additional 50 
hours per year in non-emergency situations. All other emergency 
stationary RICE must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.6640(f).
    Engine startup means the time from initial start until applied load 
and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal 
operation. For stationary engine with catalytic controls, engine 
startup means the time from initial start until applied load and engine 
and associated equipment, including the catalyst, reaches steady state 
or normal operation.
* * * * *
    Residential/commercial/institutional emergency stationary RICE 
means an emergency stationary RICE used in residential establishments 
such as homes or residences, commercial establishments such as office 
buildings, hotels, or stores, or institutional establishments such as 
medical centers, research centers, and institutions of higher 
education.
* * * * *

0
20. Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Emission Limitations for Existing, 
New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP 
Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with 
the following emission limitations for existing, new and reconstructed 
4SRB stationary RICE at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 percent:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You must meet the
                               following emission     During periods of
       For each . . .          limitation, except   startup you must . .
                                during periods of             .
                                  startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce             Minimize the
                               formaldehyde          engine's time spent
                               emissions by 76       at idle and
                               percent or more. If   minimize the
                               you commenced         engine's startup
                               construction or       time at startup to
                               reconstruction        a period needed for
                               between December      appropriate and
                               19, 2002 and June     safe loading of the
                               15, 2004, you may     engine, not to
                               reduce formaldehyde   exceed 30 minutes,
                               emissions by 75       after which time
                               percent or more       the non-startup
                               until June 15, 2007   emission
                               or.                   limitations
                                                     apply.\1\
                              b. Limit the          ....................
                               concentration of
                               formaldehyde in the
                               stationary RICE
                               exhaust to 350
                               ppbvd or less at 15
                               percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
  of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.


[[Page 9680]]


0
21. Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Emission Limitations for New and 
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP and 
New and Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE >=250 HP Located at a Major 
Source of HAP Emissions

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with 
the following emission limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn 
and new and reconstructed compression ignition stationary RICE at 100 
percent load plus or minus 10 percent:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You must meet the
                               following emission     During periods of
       For each . . .          limitation, except   startup you must . .
                                during periods of             .
                                  startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce CO          Minimize the
                               emissions by 58       engine's time spent
                               percent or more; or   at idle and
                              b. Limit               minimize the
                               concentration of      engine's startup
                               formaldehyde in the   time at startup to
                               stationary RICE       a period needed for
                               exhaust to 12 ppmvd   appropriate and
                               or less at 15         safe loading of the
                               percent O2. If you    engine, not to
                               commenced             exceed 30 minutes,
                               construction or       after which time
                               reconstruction        the non-startup
                               between December      emission
                               19, 2002 and June     limitations
                               15, 2004, you may     apply.\1\
                               limit concentration
                               of formaldehyde to
                               17 ppmvd or less at
                               15 percent O2 until
                               June 15, 2007.
2. 4SLB stationary RICE.....  a. Reduce CO
                               emissions by 93
                               percent or more; or
                              b. Limit
                               concentration of
                               formaldehyde in the
                               stationary RICE
                               exhaust to 14 ppmvd
                               or less at 15
                               percent O2.
3. CI stationary RICE.......  a. Reduce CO
                               emissions by 70
                               percent or more; or
                              b. Limit
                               concentration of
                               formaldehyde in the
                               stationary RICE
                               exhaust to 580
                               ppbvd or less at 15
                               percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
  of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.


0
22. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for New and 
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP 
Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, Existing Non-Emergency 
Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP, and New and Reconstructed 
4SLB Burn Stationary RICE >=250 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP 
Emissions

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you 
must comply with the following operating limitations for new and 
reconstructed lean burn and existing, new and reconstructed compression 
ignition stationary RICE:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
             For each . . .                 operating limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI  a. Maintain your catalyst so
 stationary RICE complying with the       that the pressure drop across
 requirement to reduce CO emissions and   the catalyst does not change
 using an oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB     by more than 2 inches of water
 and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI          at 100 percent load plus or
 stationary RICE complying with the       minus 10 percent from the
 requirement to limit the concentration   pressure drop across the
 of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE   catalyst that was measured
 exhaust and using an oxidation           during the initial performance
 catalyst.                                test; and
                                         b. Maintain the temperature of
                                          your stationary RICE exhaust
                                          so that the catalyst inlet
                                          temperature is greater than or
                                          equal to 450 [deg]F and less
                                          than or equal to 1350
                                          [deg]F.\1\
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI  Comply with any operating
 stationary RICE complying with the       limitations approved by the
 requirement to reduce CO emissions and   Administrator.
 not using an oxidation catalyst; or
 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI
 stationary RICE complying with the
 requirement to limit the concentration
 of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE
 exhaust and not using an oxidation
 catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
  of 40 CFR 63.8(g) for a different temperature range.


[[Page 9681]]


0
23. Add Tables 2c and 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 to read as follows:

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 
Compression Ignition Stationary Rice Located at Major Sources of HAP 
Emissions

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with 
the following requirements for existing compression ignition stationary 
RICE:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You must meet the
                                    following         During periods of
       For each . . .          requirement, except  startup you must . .
                                during periods of             .
                                  startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emergency CI and black     a. Change oil and     Minimize the
 start CI.\1\.                 filter every 500      engine's time spent
                               hours of operation    at idle and
                               or annually,          minimize the
                               whichever comes       engine's startup
                               first; \2\            time at startup to
                              b. Inspect air         a period needed for
                               cleaner every 1,000   appropriate and
                               hours of operation    safe loading of the
                               or annually,          engine, not to
                               whichever comes       exceed 30 minutes,
                               first;.               after which time
                              c. Inspect all hoses   the non-startup
                               and belts every 500   emission
                               hours of operation    limitations
                               or annually,          apply.\3\
                               whichever comes
                               first, and replace
                               as necessary.\3\.
2. Non-Emergency, non-black   a. Change oil and
 start CI 500 HP.              concentration of CO
                               in the stationary
                               RICE exhaust to 23
                               ppmvd or less at 15
                               percent O2; or
                              b. Reduce CO
                               emissions by 70
                               percent or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is
  not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the work
  practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c of this
  subpart, or if performing the work practice on the required schedule
  would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or
  local law, the work practice can be delayed until the emergency is
  over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has
  abated. The work practice should be performed as soon as practicable
  after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
  State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to
  perform the work practice on the schedule required and the Federal,
  State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.
\2\ Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as
  described in Sec.   63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil
  change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart.
\3\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
  of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 
Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP 
Emissions

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with 
the following emission and operating limitations for existing 
compression ignition stationary RICE:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You must meet the
                                    following         During periods of
       For each . . .          requirement, except  startup you must . .
                                during periods of             .
                                  startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-Emergency, non-black   a. Change oil and
 start CI  500 HP.            concentration of CO
                               in the stationary
                               RICE exhaust to 23
                               ppmvd at 15 percent
                               O2; or
                              b. Reduce CO
                               emissions by 70
                               percent or more.
4. Emergency CI and black     a. Change oil and
 start CI.\2\.                 filter every 500
                               hours of operation
                               or annually,
                               whichever comes
                               first;\1\
                              b. Inspect air
                               cleaner every 1,000
                               hours of operation
                               or annually,
                               whichever comes
                               first; and
                              c. Inspect all hoses
                               and belts every 500
                               hours of operation
                               or annually,
                               whichever comes
                               first, and replace
                               as necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as
  described in Sec.   63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil
  change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart.
\2\ If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is
  not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the
  management practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2d
  of this subpart, or if performing the management practice on the
  required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under
  Federal, State, or local law, the management practice can be delayed
  until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
  State, or local law has abated. The management practice should be
  performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended or the
  unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated.
  Sources must report any failure to perform the management practice on
  the schedule required and the Federal, State or local law under which
  the risk was deemed unacceptable.


0
24. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Subsequent Performance Tests

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with 
the following subsequent performance test requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Complying with the
       For each . . .         requirement to . . .     You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   Reduce CO emissions   Conduct subsequent
 RICE with a brake             and not using a       performance tests
 horsepower >500 located at    CEMS.                 semiannually.\1\
 major sources and new or
 reconstructed CI stationary
 RICE with a brake
 horsepower >500 located at
 major sources.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with  Reduce formaldehyde   Conduct subsequent
 a brake horsepower >=5,000    emissions.            performance tests
 located at major sources.                           semiannually.\1\
3. Stationary RICE with a     Limit the             Conduct subsequent
 brake horsepower >500         concentration of      performance tests
 located at major sources.     formaldehyde in the   semiannually.\1\
                               stationary RICE
                               exhaust.
4. Existing non-emergency,    Limit or reduce CO    Conduct subsequent
 non-black start CI            or formaldehyde       performance tests
 stationary RICE with a        emissions.            every 8,760 hrs or
 brake horsepower >500 that                          3 years, whichever
 are not limited use                                 comes first.
 stationary RICE.
5. Existing non-emergency,    ....................  Conduct subsequent
 non-black start CI                                  performance tests
 stationary RICE with a                              every 8,760 hrs or
 brake horsepower >500 that                          5 years, whichever
 are limited use stationary                          comes first.
 RICE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.


0
25. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Performance Tests

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6610, 63.6611, 63.6612, 63.6620, and 
63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for 
performance tests for stationary RICE for existing sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Complying with the                                           According to the
         For each . . .           requirement to . .    You must . . .        Using . . .          following
                                           .                                                  requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary  a. Reduce CO        i. Measure the O2   (1) Portable CO     (a) Using ASTM
 RICE.                             emissions.          at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer..   D6522-00 (2005)
                                                       outlet of the                           \a\ (incorporated
                                                       control device;                         by reference, see
                                                       and                                     Sec.   63.14).
                                                                                               Measurements to
                                                                                               determine O2 must
                                                                                               be made at the
                                                                                               same time as the
                                                                                               measurements for
                                                                                               CO concentration.

[[Page 9683]]


                                                      ii. Measure the CO  (1) Portable CO     (a) Using ASTM
                                                       at the inlet and    and O2 analyzer..   D6522-00 (2005)
                                                       the outlet of the                       \a,b\
                                                       control device.                         (incorporated by
                                                                                               reference, see
                                                                                               Sec.   63.14) or
                                                                                               Method 10 of 40
                                                                                               CFR appendix A.
                                                                                               The CO
                                                                                               concentration
                                                                                               must be at 15
                                                                                               percent O2, dry
                                                                                               basis.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE.........  a. Reduce           i. Select the       (1) Method 1 or 1A  (a) Sampling sites
                                   formaldehyde        sampling port       of 40 CFR part      must be located
                                   emissions.          location and the    60, appendix A      at the inlet and
                                                       number of           Sec.                outlet of the
                                                       traverse points;    63.7(d)(1)(i).      control device.
                                                       and
                                                      ii. Measure O2 at   (1) Method 3 or 3A  (a) Measurements
                                                       the inlet and       or 3B of 40 CFR     to determine O2
                                                       outlet of the       part 60, appendix   concentration
                                                       control device;     A, or ASTM Method   must be made at
                                                       and                 D6522-00 (2005).    the same time as
                                                                                               the measurements
                                                                                               for formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iii. Measure        (1) Method 4 of 40  (a) Measurements
                                                       moisture content    CFR part 60,        to determine
                                                       at the inlet and    appendix A, or      moisture content
                                                       outlet of the       Test Method 320     must be made at
                                                       control device;     of 40 CFR part      the same time and
                                                       and                 63, appendix A,     location as the
                                                                           or ASTM D 6348-03.  measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iv. Measure         (1) Method 320 of   (a) Formaldehyde
                                                       formaldehyde at     40 CFR part 63,     concentration
                                                       the inlet and the   appendix A; or      must be at 15
                                                       outlet of the       ASTM D6348-03       percent O2, dry
                                                       control device.     \c\, provided in    basis. Results of
                                                                           ASTM D6348-03       this test consist
                                                                           Annex A5 (Analyte   of the average of
                                                                           Spiking             the three 1-hour
                                                                           Technique), the     or longer runs.
                                                                           percent R must be
                                                                           greater than or
                                                                           equal to 70 and
                                                                           less than or
                                                                           equal to 130..
3. Stationary RICE..............  a. Limit the        i. Select the       (1) Method 1 or 1A  (a) If using a
                                   concentration of    sampling port       of 40 CFR part      control device,
                                   formaldehyde or     location and the    60, appendix A      the sampling site
                                   CO in the           number of           Sec.                must be located
                                   stationary RICE     traverse points;    63.7(d)(1)(i).      at the outlet of
                                   exhaust.            and                                     the control
                                                                                               device.
                                                      ii. Determine the   (1) Method 3 or 3A  (a) Measurements
                                                       O2 concentration    or 3B of 40 CFR     to determine O2
                                                       of the stationary   part 60, appendix   concentration
                                                       RICE exhaust at     A, or ASTM Method   must be made at
                                                       the sampling port   D6522-00 (2005).    the same time and
                                                       location; and                           location as the
                                                                                               measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iii. Measure        (1) Method 4 of 40  (a) Measurements
                                                       moisture content    CFR part 60,        to determine
                                                       of the stationary   appendix A, or      moisture content
                                                       RICE exhaust at     Test Method 320     must be made at
                                                       the sampling port   of 40 CFR part      the same time and
                                                       location; and       63, appendix A,     location as the
                                                                           or ASTM D 6348-03.  measurements for
                                                                                               formaldehyde
                                                                                               concentration.
                                                      iv. Measure         (1) Method 320 of   (a) Formaldehyde
                                                       formaldehyde at     40 CFR part 63,     concentration
                                                       the exhaust of      appendix A; or      must be at 15
                                                       the stationary      ASTM D6348-03       percent O2, dry
                                                       RICE; or            \c\, provided in    basis. Results of
                                                                           ASTM D6348-03       this test consist
                                                                           Annex A5 (Analyte   of the average of
                                                                           Spiking             the three 1-hour
                                                                           Technique), the     or longer runs.
                                                                           percent R must be
                                                                           greater than or
                                                                           equal to 70 and
                                                                           less than or
                                                                           equal to 130.
                                                      v. Measure CO at    (1) Method 10 of    (a) CO
                                                       the exhaust of      40 CFR part 60,     concentration
                                                       the stationary      appendix A, ASTM    must be at 15
                                                       RICE.               Method D6522-00     percent O2, dry
                                                                           (2005) \a\,         basis. Results of
                                                                           Method 320 of 40    this test consist
                                                                           CFR part 63,        of the average of
                                                                           appendix A, or      the three 1-hour
                                                                           ASTM D6348-03.      longer runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM-D6522-00 (2005). You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-
  00 (2005) from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
  Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road,
  Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to test both CI and SI stationary RICE.
\b\ You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03.
\c\ You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for
  Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms
  International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.


[[Page 9684]]


0
25. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Initial Compliance With Emission 
Limitations and Operating Limitations

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6612, 63.6625 and 63.6630, you must 
initially comply with the emission and operating limitations as 
required by the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
       For each . . .          Complying with the   demonstrated initial
                              requirement to . . .   compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. The average
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions and using   reduction of
 major source and new or       oxidation catalyst,   emissions of CO
 reconstructed CI stationary   and using a CPMS.     determined from the
 RICE >500 HP located at a                           initial performance
 major source.                                       test achieves the
                                                     required CO percent
                                                     reduction; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     catalyst pressure
                                                     drop and catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. The average
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions and not     reduction of
 major source and new or       using oxidation       emissions of CO
 reconstructed CI stationary   catalyst.             determined from the
 RICE >500 HP located at a                           initial performance
 major source.                                       test achieves the
                                                     required CO percent
                                                     reduction; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. You have
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions, and        installed a CEMS to
 major source and new or       using a CEMS.         continuously
 reconstructed CI stationary                         monitor CO and
 RICE >500 HP located at a                           either O2 or CO2 at
 major source.                                       both the inlet and
                                                     outlet of the
                                                     oxidation catalyst
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(a);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     conducted a
                                                     performance
                                                     evaluation of your
                                                     CEMS using PS 3 and
                                                     4A of 40 CFR part
                                                     60, appendix B; and
                                                    iii. The average
                                                     reduction of CO
                                                     calculated using
                                                     Sec.   63.6620
                                                     equals or exceeds
                                                     the required
                                                     percent reduction.
                                                     The initial test
                                                     comprises the first
                                                     4-hour period after
                                                     successful
                                                     validation of the
                                                     CEMS. Compliance is
                                                     based on the
                                                     average percent
                                                     reduction achieved
                                                     during the 4-hour
                                                     period.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500  a. Reduce             i. The average
 HP located at a major         formaldehyde          reduction of
 source.                       emissions and using   emissions of
                               NSCR.                 formaldehyde
                                                     determined from the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test is equal to or
                                                     greater than the
                                                     required
                                                     formaldehyde
                                                     percent reduction;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     catalyst pressure
                                                     drop and catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500  a. Reduce             i. The average
 HP located at a major         formaldehyde          reduction of
 source.                       emissions and not     emissions of
                               using NSCR.           formaldehyde
                                                     determined from the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test is equal to or
                                                     greater than the
                                                     required
                                                     formaldehyde
                                                     percent reduction;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
6. Stationary RICE >500 HP    a. Limit the          i. The average
 located at a major source.    concentration of      formaldehyde
                               formaldehyde in the   concentration,
                               stationary RICE       corrected to 15
                               exhaust and using     percent O2, dry
                               oxidation catalyst    basis, from the
                               or NSCR.              three test runs is
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the formaldehyde
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and

[[Page 9685]]


                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     catalyst pressure
                                                     drop and catalyst
                                                     inlet temperature
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP    a. Limit the          i. The average
 located at a major source.    concentration of      formaldehyde
                               formaldehyde in the   concentration,
                               stationary RICE       corrected to 15
                               exhaust and not       percent O2, dry
                               using oxidation       basis, from the
                               catalyst or NSCR.     three test runs is
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the formaldehyde
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation; and
                                                    ii. You have
                                                     installed a CPMS to
                                                     continuously
                                                     monitor operating
                                                     parameters approved
                                                     by the
                                                     Administrator (if
                                                     any) according to
                                                     the requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You have
                                                     recorded the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameters (if any)
                                                     during the initial
                                                     performance test.
8. Existing stationary non-   a. Reduce CO or       i. The average
 emergency RICE >=100 HP       formaldehyde          reduction of
 located at a major source,    emissions.            emissions of CO or
 existing non-emergency CI                           formaldehyde, as
 stationary RICE >500 HP,                            applicable
 and existing stationary non-                        determined from the
 emergency RICE >=100 HP                             initial performance
 located at an area source.                          test is equal to or
                                                     greater than the
                                                     required CO or
                                                     formaldehyde, as
                                                     applicable, percent
                                                     reduction.
9. Existing stationary non-   a. Limit the          i. The average
 emergency RICE >=100 HP       concentration of      formaldehyde or CO
 located at a major source,    formaldehyde or CO    concentration, as
 existing non-emergency CI     in the stationary     applicable,
 stationary RICE >500 HP,      RICE exhaust.         corrected to 15
 and existing stationary non-                        percent O2, dry
 emergency RICE >=100 HP                             basis, from the
 located at an area source.                          three test runs is
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the formaldehyde
                                                     or CO emission
                                                     limitation, as
                                                     applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
26. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance With Emission 
Limitations and Operating Limitations

    As stated in Sec.  63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 
emissions and operating limitations as required by the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
                               Complying with the        continuous
       For each . . .         requirement to . . .   compliance by . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Conducting
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions and using   semiannual
 major source and CI           an oxidation          performance tests
 stationary RICE >500 HP       catalyst, and using   for CO to
 located at a major source.    a CPMS.               demonstrate that
                                                     the required CO
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved \a\;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature data
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.6625(b); and
                                                    iii. Reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and
                                                    v. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Conducting
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions and not     semiannual
 major source and CI           using an oxidation    performance tests
 stationary RICE >500 HP       catalyst, and using   for CO to
 located at a major source.    a CPMS.               demonstrate that
                                                     the required CO
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved \a\;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameter (if any)
                                                     data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. Reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary   a. Reduce CO          i. Collecting the
 RICE >500 HP located at a     emissions and using   monitoring data
 major source and CI           a CEMS.               according to Sec.
 stationary RICE >500 HP                             63.6625(a),
 located at a major source.                          reducing the
                                                     measurements to 1-
                                                     hour averages,
                                                     calculating the
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     of CO emissions
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.6620; and
                                                    ii. Demonstrating
                                                     that the catalyst
                                                     achieves the
                                                     required percent
                                                     reduction of CO
                                                     emissions over the
                                                     4-hour averaging
                                                     period; and

[[Page 9686]]


                                                    iii. Conducting an
                                                     annual RATA of your
                                                     CEMS using PS 3 and
                                                     4A of 40 CFR part
                                                     60, appendix B, as
                                                     well as daily and
                                                     periodic data
                                                     quality checks in
                                                     accordance with 40
                                                     CFR part 60,
                                                     appendix F,
                                                     procedure 1.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500  a. Reduce             i. Collecting the
 HP located at a major         formaldehyde          catalyst inlet
 source.                       emissions and using   temperature data
                               NSCR.                 according to Sec.
                                                     63.6625(b); and
                                                    ii. reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iii. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and
                                                    iv. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500  a. Reduce             i. Collecting the
 HP located at a major         formaldehyde          approved operating
 source.                       emissions and not     parameter (if any)
                               using NSCR.           data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iii. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
6. 4SRB stationary RICE with  Reduce formaldehyde   Conducting
 a brake HP >=5,000 located    emissions.            semiannual
 at a major source.                                  performance tests
                                                     for formaldehyde to
                                                     demonstrate that
                                                     the required
                                                     formaldehyde
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved.\a\
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP    Limit the             i. Conducting
 located at a major source.    concentration of      semiannual
                               formaldehyde in the   performance tests
                               stationary RICE       for formaldehyde to
                               exhaust and using     demonstrate that
                               oxidation catalyst    your emissions
                               or NSCR.              remain at or below
                                                     the formaldehyde
                                                     concentration limit
                                                     \a\; and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature data
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.6625(b); and
                                                    iii. Reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     catalyst inlet
                                                     temperature; and
                                                    v. Measuring the
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     once per month and
                                                     demonstrating that
                                                     the pressure drop
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     is within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitation
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
8. Stationary RICE >500 HP    Limit the             i. Conducting
 located at a major source.    concentration of      semiannual
                               formaldehyde in the   performance tests
                               stationary RICE       for formaldehyde to
                               exhaust and not       demonstrate that
                               using oxidation       your emissions
                               catalyst or NSCR.     remain at or below
                                                     the formaldehyde
                                                     concentration limit
                                                     \a\; and
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     approved operating
                                                     parameter (if any)
                                                     data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.6625(b);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. Reducing these
                                                     data to 4-hour
                                                     rolling averages;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     4-hour rolling
                                                     averages within the
                                                     operating
                                                     limitations for the
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
9. Existing stationary CI     a. Work or            i. Operating and
 RICE not subject to any       Management            maintaining the
 numerical emission            practices.            stationary RICE
 limitations.                                        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.

[[Page 9687]]


10. Existing stationary RICE  a. Reduce CO or       i. Conducting
 >500 HP that are not          formaldehyde          performance tests
 limited use stationary        emissions; or.        every 8,760 hours
 RICE, except 4SRB >500 HP    b. Limit the           or 3 years,
 located at major sources.     concentration of      whichever comes
                               formaldehyde or CO    first, for CO or
                               in the stationary     formaldehyde, as
                               RICE exhaust.         appropriate, to
                                                     demonstrate that
                                                     the required CO or
                                                     formaldehyde, as
                                                     appropriate,
                                                     percent reduction
                                                     is achieved or that
                                                     your emissions
                                                     remain at or below
                                                     the CO or
                                                     formaldehyde
                                                     concentration
                                                     limit.
11. Existing limited use      a. Reduce CO or       i. Conducting
 stationary RICE >500 HP       formaldehyde          performance tests
 that are limited use CI       emissions; or.        every 8,760 hours
 stationary RICE.             b. Limit the           or 5 years,
                               concentration of      whichever comes
                               formaldehyde or CO    first, for CO or
                               in the stationary     formaldehyde, as
                               RICE exhaust.         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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests,
  you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to
  annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test
  indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or
  formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
  operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.


0
27. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports

    As stated in Sec.  63.6650, you must comply with the following 
requirements for reports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
 You must submit a(n) . . .       contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........  a. If there are no    i. Semiannually
                               deviations from any   according to the
                               emission              requirements in
                               limitations or        Sec.
                               operating             63.6650(b)(1)-(5)
                               limitations that      for engines that
                               apply to you, a       are not limited use
                               statement that        stationary CI RICE
                               there were no         subject to
                               deviations from the   numerical emission
                               emission              limitations; and
                               limitations or       ii. Annually
                               operating             according to the
                               limitations during    requirements in
                               the reporting         Sec.
                               period. If there      63.6650(b)(6)-(9)
                               were no periods       for engines that
                               during which the      are limited use
                               CMS, including CEMS   stationary CI RICE
                               and CPMS, was out-    subject to
                               of-control, as        numerical emission
                               specified in Sec.     limitations.
                               63.8(c)(7), a
                               statement that
                               there were not
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period;
                               or
                              b. If you had a       i. Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               or operating          Sec.   63.6650(b).
                               limitation during
                               the reporting
                               period, the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.6650(d). If
                               there were periods
                               during which the
                               CMS, including CEMS
                               and CPMS, was out-
                               of-control, as
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.6650(e); or
                              c. If you had a       i. Semiannually
                               malfunction during    according to the
                               the reporting         requirements in
                               period, the           Sec.   63.6650(b).
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.6650(c)(4).
    2. Report...............  a. The fuel flow      i. Annually,
                               rate of each fuel     according to the
                               and the heating       requirements in
                               values that were      Sec.   63.6650.
                               used in your
                               calculations, and
                               you must
                               demonstrate that
                               the percentage of
                               heat input provided
                               by landfill gas or
                               digester gas, is
                               equivalent to 10
                               percent or more of
                               the gross heat
                               input on an annual
                               basis; and
                              b. The operating      i. See item 2.a.i.
                               limits provided in
                               your Federally
                               enforceable permit,
                               and any deviations
                               from these limits;
                               and
                              c. Any problems or    i. See item 2.a.i.
                               errors suspected
                               with the meters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9688]]


0
28. Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions 
to Subpart ZZZZ.

    As stated in Sec.  63.6665, you must comply with the following 
applicable general provisions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General provisions citation         Subject of citation       Applies to subpart          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  General applicability of    Yes.                   .........................
                                     the General Provisions.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions...............  Yes..................  Additional terms defined
                                                                                        in Sec.   63.6675.
Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and abbreviations...  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited activities and   Yes.                   .........................
                                     circumvention.
Sec.   63.5.......................  Construction and            Yes.                   .........................
                                     reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Applicability.............  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4).............  Compliance dates for new    Yes.                   .........................
                                     and reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).................  Notification..............  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).................  [Reserved]                                         .........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).................  Compliance dates for new    Yes.                   .........................
                                     and reconstructed area
                                     sources that become major
                                     sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).............  Compliance dates for        Yes.                   .........................
                                     existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).............  [Reserved]                                         .........................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance dates for        Yes.                   .........................
                                     existing area sources
                                     that become major sources.
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  [Reserved]                                         .........................
Sec.   63.6(e)....................  Operation and maintenance.  No.                    .........................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  Applicability of standards  No.                    .........................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2).................  Methods for determining     Yes.                   .........................
                                     compliance.
Sec.   63.6(f)(3).................  Finding of compliance.....  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3).............  Use of alternate standard.  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  Opacity and visible         No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                     emission standards.                                contain opacity or
                                                                                        visible emission
                                                                                        standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)....................  Compliance extension        Yes.                   .........................
                                     procedures and criteria.
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Presidential compliance     Yes.                   .........................
                                     exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).............  Performance test dates....  Yes..................  Subpart ZZZZ contains
                                                                                        performance test dates
                                                                                        at Sec.  Sec.   63.6610,
                                                                                        63.6611, and 63.6612.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).................  CAA section 114 authority.  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).................  Notification of             Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     performance test.                                  63.7(b)(1) only applies
                                                                                        as specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).................  Notification of             Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     rescheduling.                                      63.7(b)(2) only applies
                                                                                        as specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.7(c)....................  Quality assurance/test      Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     plan.                                              63.7(c) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.7(d)....................  Testing facilities........  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  Conditions for conducting   No...................  Subpart ZZZZ specifies
                                     performance tests.                                 conditions for
                                                                                        conducting performance
                                                                                        tests at Sec.   63.6620.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).................  Conduct of performance      Yes..................  Subpart ZZZZ specifies
                                     tests and reduction of                             test methods at Sec.
                                     data.                                              63.6620.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).................  Test run duration.........  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(4).................  Administrator may require   Yes.                   .........................
                                     other testing under
                                     section 114 of the CAA.
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Alternative test method     Yes.                   .........................
                                     provisions.
Sec.   63.7(g)....................  Performance test data       Yes.                   .........................
                                     analysis, recordkeeping,
                                     and reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h)....................  Waiver of tests...........  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).................  Applicability of            Yes..................  Subpart ZZZZ contains
                                     monitoring requirements.                           specific requirements
                                                                                        for monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                        63.6625.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).................  Performance specifications  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved]                                         .........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Monitoring for control      No.                    .........................
                                     devices.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).................  Monitoring................  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3).............  Multiple effluents and      Yes.                   .........................
                                     multiple monitoring
                                     systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).................  Monitoring system           Yes.                   .........................
                                     operation and maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  Routine and predictable     Yes.                   .........................
                                     SSM.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  SSM not in Startup          Yes.                   .........................
                                     Shutdown Malfunction Plan.

[[Page 9689]]


Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  Compliance with operation   Yes.                   .........................
                                     and maintenance
                                     requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).............  Monitoring system           Yes.                   .........................
                                     installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous monitoring       Yes..................  Except that subpart ZZZZ
                                     system (CMS) requirements.                         does not require
                                                                                        Continuous Opacity
                                                                                        Monitoring System
                                                                                        (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  COMS minimum procedures...  No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                                                                        require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8).............  CMS requirements..........  Yes..................  Except that subpart ZZZZ
                                                                                        does not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)....................  CMS quality control.......  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.8(e)....................  CMS performance evaluation  Yes..................  Except for Sec.
                                                                                        63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                        applies to COMS.
                                                                                       Except that Sec.
                                                                                        63.8(e) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5).............  Alternative monitoring      Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     method.                                            63.8(f)(4) only applies
                                                                                        as specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to relative     Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     accuracy test.                                     63.8(f)(6) only applies
                                                                                        as specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.8(g)....................  Data reduction............  Yes..................  Except that provisions
                                                                                        for COMS are not
                                                                                        applicable. Averaging
                                                                                        periods for
                                                                                        demonstrating compliance
                                                                                        are specified at Sec.
                                                                                        Sec.   63.6635 and
                                                                                        63.6640.
Sec.   63.9(a)....................  Applicability and State     Yes.                   .........................
                                     delegation of
                                     notification requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5).............  Initial notifications.....  Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                        63.9(b)(3) is reserved.
                                                                                       Except that Sec.
                                                                                        63.9(b) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(c)....................  Request for compliance      Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     extension.                                         63.9(c) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  Notification of special     Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     compliance requirements                            63.9(d) only applies as
                                     for new sources.                                   specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Notification of             Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     performance test.                                  63.9(e) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  Notification of visible     No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                     emission (VE)/opacity                              contain opacity or VE
                                     test.                                              standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).................  Notification of             Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     performance evaluation.                            63.9(g) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2).................  Notification of use of      No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                     COMS data.                                         contain opacity or VE
                                                                                        standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3).................  Notification that           Yes..................  If alternative is in use.
                                     criterion for alternative
                                     to RATA is exceeded.
                                                                                       Except that Sec.
                                                                                        63.9(g) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6).............  Notification of compliance  Yes..................  Except that notifications
                                     status.                                            for sources using a CEMS
                                                                                        are due 30 days after
                                                                                        completion of
                                                                                        performance evaluations.
                                                                                        Sec.   63.9(h)(4) is
                                                                                        reserved.
                                                                                       Except that Sec.
                                                                                        63.9(h) only applies as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.6645.
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of submittal     Yes.                   .........................
                                     deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Change in previous          Yes.                   .........................
                                     information.
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Administrative provisions   Yes.                   .........................
                                     for recordkeeping/
                                     reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)................  Record retention..........  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v).........  Records related to SSM....  No.                    .........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi).......  Records...................  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)...........  Record when under waiver..  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  Records when using          Yes..................  For CO standard if using
                                     alternative to RATA.                               RATA alternative.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...........  Records of supporting       Yes.                   .........................
                                     documentation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)................  Records of applicability    Yes.                   .........................
                                     determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)...................  Additional records for      Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     sources using CEMS.                                63.10(c)(2)-(4) and (9)
                                                                                        are reserved.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)................  General reporting           Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)................  Report of performance test  Yes.                   .........................
                                     results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting opacity or VE     No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                     observations.                                      contain opacity or VE
                                                                                        standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)................  Progress reports..........  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)................  Startup, shutdown, and      No.                    .........................
                                     malfunction reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i).....  Additional CMS Reports....  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)............  COMS-related report.......  No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                                                                        require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)................  Excess emission and         Yes..................  Except that Sec.
                                     parameter exceedances                              63.10(e)(3)(i) (C) is
                                     reports.                                           reserved.

[[Page 9690]]


Sec.   63.10(e)(4)................  Reporting COMS data.......  No...................  Subpart ZZZZ does not
                                                                                        require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Waiver for recordkeeping/   Yes.                   .........................
                                     reporting.
Sec.   63.11......................  Flares....................  No.                    .........................
Sec.   63.12......................  State authority and         Yes.                   .........................
                                     delegations.
Sec.   63.13......................  Addresses.................  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.14......................  Incorporation by reference  Yes.                   .........................
Sec.   63.15......................  Availability of             Yes.                   .........................
                                     information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-3508 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```