9698 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–8778–6] 

RIN 2060–AP36 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for existing stationary 

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 

proposing national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants for existing 

stationary compression ignition engines 

greater than 500 brake horsepower that 

are located at major sources, based on a 

new review of these engines following 

the first RICE NESHAP rulemaking in 

2004. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

amend the previously promulgated 

regulations regarding operation of 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 4, 2009, or 30 days after 

date of public hearing if later. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before April 6, 2009. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

by March 25, 2009, a public hearing will 

be held on April 6, 2009. If you are 

interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

(919) 541–7966 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0708, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person identified below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing: If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at EPA’s campus 

located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in 

Research Triangle Park, NC or an 

alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. We also rely 

on documents in Docket ID Nos. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0059, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2005–0029, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 

0030, and incorporate those dockets into 

the record for this proposed rule. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. 

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:

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule 

A. What is the source category regulated by 

this proposed rule? 

B. What are the pollutants regulated by this 

proposed rule? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

D. What are the requirements for 

demonstrating compliance? 

E. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

IV. Rationale for Proposed Rule 

A. Which control technologies apply to 

stationary RICE? 

B. How did EPA determine the basis and 

level of the proposed standards? 

C. How did EPA determine the compliance 

requirements? 

D. How did EPA determine the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements? 

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9699 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comments and 

Participation 

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 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action include: 

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry using a stationary internal combustion engine as 

defined in this proposed rule.

2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 

622110 Medical and surgical hospitals. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your engine is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria of this proposed 

rule. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the 

following address: Mrs. Melanie King, 

c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(Room C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

(b) Follow directions. EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

(d) Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

(e) If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

(f) Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

(g) Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

(h) Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Docket. The docket number for this 

proposed rule is Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0708. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed rule 

will be posted on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA 

will post a copy of this proposed rule 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated 

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

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

II. Background 

This action proposes national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) from existing 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) with a site 

rating of less than or equal to 500 

horsepower (HP) located at major 

sources, existing non-emergency CI 

engines with a site rating >500 HP at 

major sources, and existing stationary 

RICE of any power rating located at area 

sources. EPA is proposing these 

requirements to meet its statutory 

obligation to address hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emissions from these 

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

and 112(k) of the CAA. The final 

NESHAP for stationary RICE would be 

promulgated 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 requirements for these 

sources, EPA did not finalize these 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9700 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark 

Ignition Internal Combustion Engines and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,’’ 71 FR 

33803–33855, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ 

ricepg.html, June 12, 2006. 

requirements due to comments received 

indicating that the proposed Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

determinations for existing sources were 

inappropriate and 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 D.C. 

Circuit found that EPA’s no emission 

reduction MACT determination in the 

challenged rule was unlawful. Because 

in the proposed stationary RICE rule, 

EPA had used a MACT floor 

methodology 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. EPA has also 

re-evaluated the standards for existing 

area sources in light of the comments 

received on the proposed rule. 

This proposal initiates a separate 

rulemaking process that focuses on 

existing sources. EPA has gathered 

further information on existing engines 

and has considered comments it 

received on the original proposed rule 

and the intervening court decision in 

creating this proposed rulemaking. 

Commenters are advised to provide new 

comments in response to this proposal 

and not to rely on any comments they 

may have provided in previous 

rulemaking actions. 

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 2006 proposed rule 

for new stationary diesel engines,1 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 Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 

authorities. The Agency sought 

comment on the larger, older engines 

because available data indicate that 

those engines emit the majority of 

particulate matter (PM) and toxic 

emissions from non-emergency 

stationary engines as a whole. A 

summary of comments and responses 

that were received on the ANPRM was 

added to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0995. 

EPA has taken several actions over the 

past several years to reduce exhaust 

pollutants from stationary diesel 

engines, but believes that further 

reducing exhaust pollutants from 

stationary diesel engines, particularly 

existing stationary diesel engines that 

have not been subject to Federal 

standards, is justified. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing emissions reductions from 

existing stationary diesel engines. 

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule 

A. What is the source category regulated 

by this proposed rule? 

This proposed rule addresses 

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. A major source of HAP 

emissions is 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, 

except that for oil and gas production 

facilities, a major source of HAP 

emissions is determined for each surface 

site. 42 § 7412(n)(4). An area source of 

HAP emissions is a source that is not a 

major source. This proposed rule also 

addresses emissions from existing 

compression ignition (CI) engines 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources. 

This action is a revision to the 

regulations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, currently applicable to existing, 

new, and reconstructed stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources; new and reconstructed 

stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources; and new 

and reconstructed stationary RICE 

located at area sources. Subpart ZZZZ 

does not currently cover existing 

stationary engines located at area 

sources of HAP emissions, nor does it 

apply to existing stationary engines 

located at major sources with a site 

rating of 500 HP or less. When the 

subpart ZZZZ regulations were 

promulgated (see 69 FR 33474, June 15, 

2004), EPA deferred promulgating 

regulations with respect to stationary 

engines 500 HP or less at major sources 

until further information on the engines 

could be obtained and analyzed. EPA 

decided to regulate these smaller 

engines at the same time that it 

regulated engines located at area 

sources. EPA issued regulations for new 

stationary engines located at area 

sources of HAP emissions and new 

stationary engines located at major 

sources with a site rating of 500 HP or 

less in the rulemaking issued on January 

18, 2008 (73 FR 3568), but did not 

promulgate a final regulation for 

existing stationary engines. 

1. Stationary RICE ≤500 HP at Major 

Sources 

This action proposes to revise 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to address HAP 

emissions from existing stationary RICE 

less than or equal to 500 HP located at 

major sources. For stationary engines 

less than or equal to 500 HP at major 

sources, EPA must determine what is 

the appropriate MACT for those engines 

under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. 

EPA has divided the source category 

into the following subcategories: 

• Stationary RICE less than 50 HP, 

• Landfill and digester gas stationary 

RICE greater than or equal to 50 HP, 

• CI stationary RICE greater than or 

equal to 50 HP, 

Æ Emergency 

Æ Non-emergency and 

• Spark ignition (SI) stationary RICE 

greater than or equal to 50 HP 

Æ Emergency 

Æ Non-emergency 

› 2-stroke lean burn (2SLB) 

• <250 HP 

• ≥250 HP 

› 4-stroke lean burn (4SLB) 

• <250 HP 

• ≥250 HP 

› 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB). 

2. Stationary RICE at Area Sources 

This action proposes to revise 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ, in order to 

address HAP emissions from existing 

stationary RICE located at area sources. 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to establish 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

both major and area sources of HAP that 

are listed for regulation under CAA 

section 112(c). As noted above, an area 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9701 

2 In contrast, mobile source emission standards 

for diesel engines (both nonroad and on-highway) 

are promulgated on a mass basis rather than 

concentration. 

source is a stationary source that is not 

a major source. 

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

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, 

as a result of emissions of area sources, 

pose the greatest threat to public health 

in the largest number of urban areas. 

EPA implemented this provision in 

1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

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

Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA 

identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, 

and these HAP are referred to as the ‘‘30 

urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) requires 

EPA to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to ensure 

that area sources representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. EPA 

implemented these requirements 

through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

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

The area source stationary engine source 

category was one of the listed categories. 

A primary goal of the Strategy is to 

achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 

incidence attributable to HAP emitted 

from stationary sources. 

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

may elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices by such sources 

to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ Additional information on 

generally available control technologies 

(GACT) or management practices is 

found in the Senate report on the 

legislation (Senate report Number 101– 

228, December 20, 1989), which 

describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

EPA can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have many small 

businesses. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. EPA also 

considers the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, EPA may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as EPA has 

already noted, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, EPA 

considers the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

The urban HAP that must be regulated 

at stationary RICE to achieve the section 

112(c)(3) requirement to regulate 

categories accounting for 90 percent of 

the urban HAP are: 7 PAH, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, arsenic, 

benzene, beryllium compounds, and 

cadmium compounds. As explained 

below, EPA chose to select 

formaldehyde to serve as a surrogate for 

HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the 

hazardous air pollutant present in the 

highest concentration from stationary 

engines. In addition, emissions data 

show that formaldehyde emission levels 

are related to other HAP emission 

levels. EPA is proposing standards for 

area source stationary RICE below. 

The subcategories for area sources are 

the same as those for major sources and 

are listed in section A.1. above. 

3. Stationary CI RICE >500 HP at Major 

Sources 

In addition, EPA is proposing 

emission standards for non-emergency 

stationary CI engines greater than 500 

HP at major sources under its authority 

to review and revise emission standards 

as necessary under section 112(d) of the 

CAA. 

B. What are the pollutants regulated by 

this proposed rule? 

The rule being proposed in this action 

would regulate 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 natural gas 

fired and diesel fired RICE include: 

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,3-butadiene, 

2,2,4-trimethylpentane, acetaldehyde, 

acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, 

chloroethane, ethylbenzene, 

formaldehyde, methanol, methylene 

chloride, n-hexane, naphthalene, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

polycyclic organic matter, styrene, 

tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. 

Metallic HAP from diesel fired 

stationary RICE that have been 

measured are: cadmium, chromium, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium. Although numerous HAP may 

be emitted from RICE, only a few 

account for essentially all of the mass of 

HAP emissions from stationary RICE. 

These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, 

methanol, and acetaldehyde. 

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). These HAP emissions are 

known to cause, or contribute 

significantly to air pollution, which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. 

EPA is proposing to limit emissions of 

HAP through emissions standards for 

formaldehyde for non-emergency 4SRB 

engines, emergency SI engines, and 

engines less than 50 HP, and through 

emission standards for carbon monoxide 

(CO) for all other engines. For the RICE 

NESHAP promulgated in 2004 (69 FR 

33474) for engines greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources, EPA chose to 

select formaldehyde to serve as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions. 

Formaldehyde is the hazardous air 

pollutant present in the highest 

concentration in the exhaust from 

stationary engines. In addition, 

emissions data show that formaldehyde 

emission levels are related to other HAP 

emission levels. 

For the NESHAP promulgated in 

2004, EPA also found that there is a 

relationship between CO emissions 

reductions and HAP emissions 

reductions from 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI 

stationary engines. Therefore, because 

testing for CO emissions has many 

advantages over testing for 

formaldehyde, CO emissions were 

chosen as a surrogate for HAP emissions 

reductions for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI 

stationary engines operating with 

oxidation catalyst systems for that rule. 

However, EPA could not confirm the 

same relationship between CO and 

formaldehyde for 4SRB engines, so 

emission standards for such engines 

were provided in terms of 

formaldehyde. 

For the standards being proposed in 

this action, EPA believes that previous 

decisions regarding the appropriateness 

of using formaldehyde and CO both in 

concentration (ppm) levels as has been 

done for stationary sources before as 

surrogates for HAP are still valid.2

Consequently, EPA is proposing 

emission standards for formaldehyde for 

4SRB engines and emission standards 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for CO for lean burn and CI engines in 

order to regulate HAP emissions. 

Information EPA has received from 

stationary engine manufacturers 

indicate that most SI emergency engines 

and engines below 50 HP are and will 

be 4SRB engines. As discussed above, 

EPA could not confirm a relationship 

between CO and formaldehyde 

emissions for 4SRB engines. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing standards for 

formaldehyde for those engines. EPA is 

interested in receiving comments on the 

use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for 

HAP and information on any other 

surrogates that may be better indicators 

of total HAP emissions and their 

reductions. 

We recognize that stationary diesel 

engines emit trace amounts of metal 

HAP that remain in the particle phase. 

EPA believes that formaldehyde and CO 

are reasonable surrogates for total HAP. 

Although metal HAP emissions from 

existing diesel engines are very small— 

a total of about 200 tons per year—we 

are interested in receiving comments 

and data about more appropriate 

surrogates, if any, for the metallic HAP 

emissions. 

In addition to reducing HAP and CO, 

the proposed rule would likely result in 

the reduction of PM emissions from 

existing diesel engines. The 

aftertreatment technologies expected to 

be used to reduce HAP and CO 

emissions also reduce emissions of PM 

from diesel engines. Furthermore, this 

proposed rule would also result in 

nitrogen oxides (NOX ) reductions from 

rich burn engines since these engines 

would likely need to install nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) 

technology that helps reduce NOX in 

addition to CO and HAP emissions. 

Also, we propose 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 proposed standards? 

1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major 

Sources 

The emission standards that are being 

proposed in this action for stationary 

RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and stationary 

CI RICE greater than 300 HP located at 

major sources are shown in Table 1 of 

this preamble. Note that EPA is also coproposing that the same standards apply 

during both normal operation and 

periods of startup and malfunctions. 

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

Subcategory 

Emission standards at 15 percent O2

(parts per million by volume on a dry basis) 

Except during periods of startup, 

or malfunction During periods of startup, or malfunction 

Non-Emergency 2SLB 50≥HP≤249 .................... 85 ppmvd CO ................................................... 85 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency 2SLB 250≥HP≤500 .................. 8 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 85 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency 4SLB 50≥HP≤249 .................... 95 ppmvd CO ................................................... 95 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency 4SLB 250 ≥HP≤500 ................ 9 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 95 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency 4SRB 50≥HP≤500 ................... 200 ppbvd formaldehyde or 90% formaldehyde reduction.2 ppmvd formaldehyde. 

All CI 50≥HP≤300 ............................................... 40 ppmvd CO ................................................... 40 ppmvd CO. 

Emergency CI 300>HP≤500 .............................. 40 ppmvd CO ................................................... 40 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency CI >300 HP ............................. 4 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 40 ppmvd CO. 

<50 HP ............................................................... 2 ppmvd formaldehyde .................................... 2 ppmvd formaldehyde. 

Landfill/Digester 50≥HP≤500 .............................. 177 ppmvd CO ................................................. 177 ppmvd CO. 

Emergency SI 50≥HP≤500 ................................. 2 ppmvd formaldehyde .................................... 2 ppmvd formaldehyde. 

In addition, certain existing stationary 

RICE located at major sources are 

subject to fuel requirements. Owners 

and operators of existing stationary nonemergency diesel-fueled 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 

parts per million (ppm) and either a 

minimum cetane index of 40 or a 

maximum aromatic content of 35 

volume percent. 

2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area 

Sources 

The emission requirements that we 

are proposing in this action for existing 

stationary RICE located at existing area 

sources are shown in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Note that EPA is also coproposing that the same standards apply 

during both normal operation and 

periods of startup and malfunctions. 

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

Subcategory 

Emission standards at 15 percent O2, as applicable, or management practice 

Except during periods of startup, 

or malfunction During periods of startup, or malfunction 

Non-Emergency 2SLB 50≥HP≤249 .................... Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Non-Emergency 2SLB HP≥250 .......................... 8 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 85 ppmvd CO. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9703 

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

Continued 

Subcategory 

Emission standards at 15 percent O2, as applicable, or management practice 

Except during periods of startup, 

or malfunction During periods of startup, or malfunction 

Non-Emergency 4SLB 50≥HP≤249 .................... Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Non-Emergency 4SLB HP≥250 .......................... 9 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 95 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency 4SRB HP≥50 ........................... 200 ppbvd formaldehyde or 90% formaldehyde reduction.2 ppmvd formaldehyde. 

Emergency CI 50≥HP≤500 ................................. Change oil and filter every 500 hours; inspect 

air cleaner every 1000 hours, inspect all 

hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; inspect 

air cleaner every 1000 hours, inspect all 

hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Emergency CI HP>500 ...................................... 40 ppmvd CO ................................................... 40 ppmvd CO. 

Non-Emergency CI 50≥HP≤300 ......................... Change oil and filter every 500 hours; inspect 

air cleaner every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Non-Emergency CI HP>300 ............................... 4 ppmvd CO or 90% CO reduction ................. 40 ppmvd CO. 

HP<50 ................................................................. Change 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.

Change 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. 

Landfill/Digester Gas 50≥HP≤500 ...................... Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Landfill/Digester Gas HP>500 ............................ 177 ppmvd CO ................................................. 177 ppmvd CO. 

Emergency SI 50≥HP≤500 ................................. Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary.

Change oil and filter every 500 hours; replace 

spark plugs every 1000 hours; and inspect 

all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as necessary. 

Emergency SI HP>500 ....................................... 2 ppmvd formaldehyde .................................... 2 ppmvd formaldehyde. 

3. New or Reconstructed Stationary 

RICE >500 HP at Major Sources, New or 

Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE 

≥250 HP at Major Sources and Existing 

4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP at Major 

Sources. 

The EPA is co-proposing, in the 

alternative, as explained below, to 

amend the existing regulations for new 

and reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP at major 

sources, new and reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB stationary RICE ≥250 

HP at major sources, and existing 4SRB 

stationary RICE >500 HP at major 

sources, in order to set limits during 

periods of startup and malfunction. 

These emission limitations are shown in 

Table 3 of this preamble. Note that EPA 

is also co-proposing that the same 

standards apply during both normal 

operation and periods of startup and 

malfunctions. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED NON-EMERGENCY STATIONARY RICE >500 HP AT

MAJOR SOURCES AND EXISTING NON-EMERGENCY 4SRB STATIONARY RICE >500 HP AT MAJOR SOURCES DURING

PERIODS OF STARTUP OR MALFUNCTION

Subcategory Emission standards at 15 percent O2

New or reconstructed non-emergency 2SLB >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions.

Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 259 ppmvd 

or less at 15 percent O2 during periods of startup or malfunction. 

New or reconstructed non-emergency 4SLB ≥250 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions.

Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 420 ppmvd 

or less at 15 percent O2 during periods of startup or malfunction. 

Existing non-emergency 4SRB >500 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions; or New or reconstructed non-emergency 4SRB >500 

HP located at a major source of HAP emissions.

Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

2 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2 during periods of startup or malfunction. 

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

source of HAP emissions.

Limit concentration of CO in the stationary RICE exhaust to 77 ppmvd 

or less at 15 percent O2 during periods of startup or malfunction. 

4. Operating Limitations 

The EPA is proposing operating 

limitations for existing stationary nonemergency 2SLB, 4SLB, 4SRB, and CI 

RICE that are greater than 500 HP and 

are located at an area source, and 

existing stationary non-emergency CI 

RICE that are greater than 500 HP and 

are located at a major source. These are 

large engines that are subject to 

proposed standards that would require 

the use of aftertreatment. Owners and 

operators of engines that are equipped 

with oxidation catalyst or NSCR must 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

maintain the catalyst so that the 

pressure drop across the catalyst does 

not change by more than 2 inches of 

water from the pressure drop across the 

catalyst that was measured during the 

initial performance test. Owners and 

operators of these engines must also 

maintain the temperature of the 

stationary RICE exhaust so that the 

catalyst inlet temperature is between 

450 and 1350 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) for 

engines with an oxidation catalyst and 

750 to 1250 °F for engines with NSCR. 

Owners and operators of engines that 

are not using oxidation catalyst or NSCR 

must comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

5. Management Practices 

As shown in Table 2 above, the EPA 

is proposing management practices for 

several subcategories of engines located 

at area sources. Such management 

practices include maintenance 

requirements that are expected to ensure 

that emission control systems are 

working properly. EPA asks for 

comments on these management 

practices and requests suggestions of 

additional maintenance requirements 

that may be needed for some of these 

engine subcategories. 

6. Fuel Requirements 

In addition to emission standards and 

management practices, certain 

stationary CI RICE located at existing 

area sources are subject to fuel 

requirements. These fuel requirements 

are proposed 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. Thus, owners and operators of 

stationary non-emergency diesel-fueled 

CI engines greater than 300 HP with a 

displacement of less than 30 liters per 

cylinder located at existing area sources 

must only use diesel fuel meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b), 

which 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. 

D. What are the requirements for 

demonstrating compliance? 

The following sections describe the 

requirements for demonstrating 

compliance under the proposed rule. 

1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major 

Sources 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency RICE located 

at major sources that are less than 100 

HP and stationary emergency 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 RICE located 

at major sources that are less than 100 

HP and existing stationary emergency 

RICE located at major sources do not 

have to conduct any performance 

testing. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency 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 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. 

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 RICE subject to numerical 

emission standards and that are located 

at area sources, as shown in Table 2 of 

this preamble, must conduct an initial 

performance test to demonstrate that 

they are achieving the required emission 

standards. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary non-emergency RICE that are 

greater than 500 HP and located at area 

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 existing 

stationary non-emergency 2SLB, 4SLB, 

4SRB, and 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 or NSCR is being used 

on the engine. The pressure drop across 

the catalyst must also be measured 

monthly. If an oxidation catalyst or 

NSCR 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. 

E. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

The following sections describe the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements that are required under the 

proposed rule. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE that do not 

meet the requirements for nonemergency engines are required to keep 

records of their hours of operation. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE must install 

a non-resettable hour meter on their 

engines to record the necessary 

information. 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. 

Owners and operators can petition the 

Administrator for additional hours, 

beyond the allowed 100 hours per year, 

if such additional hours should prove to 

be necessary for maintenance and 

testing reasons. A petition is not 

required if the engine is mandated by 

regulation such as State or local 

requirements to run more than 100 

hours per year for maintenance and 

testing purposes. 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 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9705 

not exceeded. In addition, owners and 

operators are allowed to operate their 

stationary emergency RICE for nonemergency 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 and owners and operators 

may not engage in income-generating 

activities during those 50 hours. 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. 

Owners and operators of existing 

stationary RICE located at area sources, 

that are subject to management practices 

as shown in Table 2, are required to 

keep records that show that 

management practices that are required 

are being met. Such records are to be 

kept on-site by owners and operators. 

These records must include, but may 

not be limited to: oil and filter change 

dates, oil amounts added and 

corresponding hour on the hour meter, 

fuel consumption rates, air filter change 

dates, records of repairs and other 

maintenance performed. 

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. Rationale for Proposed Rule 

A. Which control technologies apply to 

stationary RICE? 

EPA reviewed various control 

technologies applicable to stationary 

engines. For detailed information on the 

control technology review that EPA 

conducted, refer to information in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The 

following sections provide general 

descriptions of currently available 

controls that can be used to reduce 

emissions from stationary engines. 

Non-selective catalytic reduction has 

been commercially available for many 

years and has been widely used on 

stationary engines. This technology 

utilizes catalytic material to reduce 

some pollutants like NOX , while also 

oxidizing other pollutants like CO, HAP 

and VOC. The technology can be 

applied to rich burn stationary engines 

and is capable of significantly reducing 

HAP emissions from stationary RICE. 

Based on available information, NSCR 

appears to be technically feasible for 

rich burn engines down to 25 HP. The 

NESHAP for stationary rich burn RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at major 

sources that were promulgated in 2004 

were based upon applying NSCR to 

meet the emission standards. In order to 

meet the emission standards 

promulgated on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 

3568), new stationary rich burn engines 

are also expected to use NSCR. 

Oxidation catalysts are another type 

of aftertreatment that can be applied to 

stationary engines and are typically 

used with lean burn engines. The 

technology can be applied to either 

diesel or natural gas fired lean burn 

engines. Significant reductions in HAP 

and CO are achieved with oxidation 

catalysts and applying the technology to 

diesel fired engines also yields PM mass 

emissions reductions. Oxidation catalyst 

control has been widely used and has 

been available for decades for use with 

lean burn stationary engines. While 

oxidation catalysts are very effective at 

reducing HAP and CO emissions, there 

is some concern about increasing NO2

emissions as a result of using highly 

catalyzed devices. Thus, EPA requests 

comments and information on the 

potential increase in NO2 emissions and 

any strategies to help reduce their 

formation. 

Catalyzed diesel particulate filters are 

applicable to CI engines using diesel 

fuel and are primarily used to reduce 

PM emissions. Applying CDPF can 

significantly reduce PM emissions, 

while also significantly reducing 

emissions of HAP and CO. Catalyzed 

diesel particulate filters are the basis for 

EPA’s current on-highway diesel PM 

standards (40 CFR Part 86), the Tier 4 

emission standards for PM for most 

nonroad CI engines regulated by 40 CFR 

part 1039, the most recent locomotive 

and marine engine standards and also 

for most new non-emergency stationary 

CI engines regulated under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart IIII. Recently finalized 

standards for stationary CI engines in 

California are also based on the use of 

particulate filters in some cases. 

B. How did EPA determine the basis and 

level of the proposed standards? 

1. Stationary RICE at Major Sources 

Section 112 of the CAA requires that 

EPA establish NESHAP for the control 

of HAP from new and existing sources 

in regulated source categories. The CAA 

requires the NESHAP for major sources 

to reflect the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of HAP that is 

achievable. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as the maximum 

achievable control technology, or 

MACT. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, 

EPA must first calculate the minimum 

stringency levels for new and existing 

sources in a category or subcategory. 

The minimum level of stringency is 

called the MACT ‘‘floor,’’ and CAA 

section 112(d)(3) sets forth differing 

levels of minimum stringency that 

EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and 

reconstructed sources, or existing 

sources. For new and reconstructed 

sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) provides 

that the ‘‘degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable 

[* * *] shall not be less stringent than 

the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source, as determined by the 

Administrator.’’ Emissions standards for 

existing units may be less stringent than 

standards for new units, but ‘‘shall not 

be less stringent * * * than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of the 

existing sources (for which the 

Administrator has emissions 

information),’’ (or the best performing 5 

sources for categories or subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources). CAA 

section 112(d)(3). The MACT standard 

must be no less stringent than the 

MACT floor. 

In developing MACT, EPA must also 

determine whether to control emissions 

‘‘beyond-the-floor,’’ after considering 

the costs, nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements of such more stringent 

control. Section 112 of the CAA allows 

EPA to establish subcategories among a 

group of sources, based on criteria that 

differentiate such sources. The 

subcategories that have been developed 

for stationary RICE were previously 

listed and are necessary in order to 

capture the distinct differences, which 

could affect the emissions of HAP from 

these engines. The complete rationale 

explaining the development of these 

subcategories is provided in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Subcategorization 

and MACT Floor Determination for 

Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines ≤500 HP at Major 

Sources’’ and is available from the 

docket. 

For the MACT floor determination, 

EPA reviewed the data in its Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards’ 

RICE Population Database (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Population 

Database’’) and RICE Emissions 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Database (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Emissions Database’’). The Population 

and Emissions Databases represent the 

best information available to EPA. 

Information in the Population and 

Emissions Database was obtained from 

several sources and is further described 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking for 

the RICE NESHAP for engines greater 

than 500 HP at major sources (67 FR 

77830, December 19, 2002) and in the 

docket for the RICE NESHAP 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0059). In order to establish the emission 

standard for each subcategory of 

stationary existing RICE, EPA referred to 

the Emissions Database. The following 

sections describe the MACT floor 

review and proposed MACT 

determinations for each subcategory of 

existing stationary RICE. 

a. Stationary RICE <50 HP. According 

to the Population Database there are no 

existing stationary RICE less than 50 HP 

using catalyst type controls. In assessing 

the average of the top twelve percent 

best performing engines, EPA 

determined that the MACT floor is 2 

ppmvd formaldehyde. EPA is not 

expecting any stationary CI engines less 

than 50 HP since such engines are 

typically considered nonroad mobile 

engines and regulated under EPA’s 

mobile source requirements. Also, EPA 

does not expect any lean burn engines 

in this subcategory as lean burn engines 

tend to be found in larger engine size 

segments. Therefore, EPA believes that 

engines less than 50 HP would be 4SRB 

engines. Subsequently, EPA reviewed 

formaldehyde emissions from 4SRB 

engines and averaged the emissions 

associated with the best performing 12 

percent of sources. As a result, the 

MACT floor for engines below 50 HP is 

2 parts per million by volume, dry basis 

(ppmvd) of formaldehyde at 15 percent 

oxygen (O2). 

EPA considered regulatory options 

more stringent than the MACT floor, in 

particular, emission standards based on 

the use of NSCR. The cost per ton of 

HAP reduced for stationary engines less 

than 50 HP equipped with NSCR is 

substantial, particularly when 

considering the potential HAP 

reductions that would be expected. 

Therefore, MACT is equivalent to the 

MACT floor. For details on the cost per 

ton analysis, refer to the memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Above-the-Floor 

Determination for Stationary RICE,’’ 

included in the docket. 

b. Stationary Landfill/Digester Gas 

≥50 HP. According to the Population 

Database there are no existing landfill or 

digester gas engines using catalyst type 

controls. EPA consulted several sources, 

including the Emissions Database, in 

order to determine the level being 

achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of landfill and digester gas 

engines. 

Based on reviewing recently obtained 

test reports for landfill and digester gas 

engines, EPA concluded that the latest 

information obtained on the current 

levels being achieved by landfill gas 

engines is the most appropriate and 

representative information and therefore 

was used to determine the MACT floor 

limit. EPA analyzed the CO emissions 

from landfill and digester gas test 

reports. EPA has previously discussed 

the appropriateness of using CO 

emissions as a surrogate for HAP 

emissions and therefore reviewed CO 

emissions from landfill and digester gas 

engines. EPA selected the best 

performing 12 percent and averaged 

those 12 percent to determine the 

MACT floor. As a result, the MACT 

floor for landfill and digester gas 

stationary RICE greater than or equal to 

50 HP is 177 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent 

O2. 

Currently, there are no viable beyondthe-floor options for engines that 

combust landfill or digester gas. 

Aftertreatment controls could 

theoretically be applied to engines 

burning waste gas; however, numerous 

studies have shown that a family of 

silicon-based compounds named 

siloxanes present in landfill gas can foul 

add-on catalyst controls. Such fouling 

can render the catalyst inoperable 

within short periods of time. Pretreatment systems could be applied to 

clean the fuel prior to combustion 

theoretically allowing catalysts to be 

used, but has not shown to be a reliable 

technology at this time. Therefore, 

MACT is equivalent to the MACT floor. 

c. Stationary Emergency CI 50≥ HP 

≤500. EPA reviewed CO emissions from 

CI engines and selected the best 

performing 12 percent. As a result, the 

MACT floor for CI emergency stationary 

RICE greater than or equal to 50 HP and 

less than or equal to 500 HP is 40 

ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2. 

As part of our analysis for the 

possibility of going beyond the MACT 

floor, EPA considered requiring add-on 

controls for emergency engines. 

However, due to the limited operation 

of emergency engines (about 50 hours 

per year on average), the cost per ton of 

HAP removed by such controls is high. 

The estimated cost of oxidation catalyst 

per ton of HAP reduced ranges from $1 

million to $2.8 million for emergency CI 

engines in this size range. For CDPF, the 

estimated cost per ton of HAP reduced 

for emergency CI engines between 50 

and 500 HP ranges from $3.7 million to 

$8.7 million. In addition, the total HAP 

reductions achieved by applying 

aftertreatment controls would be 

minimal since stationary emergency 

engines are operated only an average of 

about 50 hours per year. Therefore, 

MACT is equivalent to the MACT floor. 

A fuller discussion of EPA’s analysis of 

regulatory alternatives above-the-floor is 

presented in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Above-the-Floor Determination for 

Stationary RICE.’’ 

d. Stationary Non-Emergency CI 50≥ 

HP ≤500. As a result of our review of the 

Emissions Database, the MACT floor for 

CI non-emergency stationary RICE 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP is 40 ppmvd of 

CO at 15 percent O2. 

As part of our analysis of going 

beyond the MACT floor, EPA 

considered the use of add-on controls 

for this subcategory of engines. The 

applicable add-on controls that yield 

significant HAP reductions are 

oxidation catalyst and CDPF. Diesel 

oxidation catalysts are capable of 

reducing HAP emissions by significant 

amounts in excess of 90 percent in some 

cases. Diesel oxidation catalysts also 

reduce emissions of CO as well as PM. 

Achievable mass reductions of PM are 

on the order of 30 percent for oxidation 

catalysts. Catalyzed diesel particulate 

filters are capable of reducing HAP and 

CO emissions by similar if not greater 

amounts, and are more efficient in 

reducing PM than oxidation catalysts. 

Achievable PM reductions are on the 

order of 90 percent or more with CDPF. 

However, CDPFs are considerably more 

expensive than diesel oxidation 

catalysts. 

EPA estimated the cost per ton of 

HAP removal by potentially applying 

oxidation catalysts and CDPFs to 

existing non-emergency CI engines. The 

specific costs associated with add-on 

controls can be found in memoranda 

available from the rulemaking docket. 

The cost per ton of HAP removed for 

CDPFs is in general significantly higher 

than the cost per ton of HAP removed 

for oxidation catalysts, and the cost per 

ton for both options drastically 

increases as the size of the engine 

decreases and is more favorable towards 

larger size engines. EPA requests data 

and other information on the ability of 

oxidation catalysts to remove HAP 

compared to CDPF. In addition, we 

request comment on the performance 

capability of these control devices to 

remove metallic HAP. 

Considering the HAP emission 

reductions capable from oxidation 

catalysts, the cost of oxidation catalyst 

control compared to CDPF, and the low 

capital costs associated with oxidation 

catalyst makes oxidation catalysts a 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9707 

3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents 

and in Radiative Forcing, in Climate Change 2007, 

Cambridge University Press, New York, Cambridge 

University Press. 

4Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate 

Impacts. 2009. U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3, 

January 2009. 

favorable option for reduction of HAP 

emissions from larger existing nonemergency stationary diesel engines. 

However, going above-the-floor and 

requiring oxidation catalysts on all nonemergency stationary CI engines would 

require significant total capital 

investment and total annual control 

costs. As stated, the cost per ton 

significantly decreases with increasing 

HP. For the greater than 300 HP segment 

the cost per ton of HAP removed, which 

includes a mixture of organic and 

metallic HAP, is estimated to be 

$51,973. This cost is almost a third less 

than the estimated cost per ton of 

$140,395 for stationary engines 50 to 

100 HP. 

Stationary existing diesel engines 

were largely uncontrolled at the Federal 

level prior to the promulgation of EPA’s 

emission standards for stationary diesel 

engines in 2004, which affected engines 

constructed beginning in 2002. Nonemergency diesel engines are estimated 

to emit 90 percent of total combined PM 

and NOX emissions from all existing 

stationary diesel engines, with 

emergency engines emitting the 

remaining 10 percent. Of the nonemergency diesel engines, about 50,000 

non-emergency engines rated 300 HP or 

higher were built prior to 2002, which 

is about 29 percent of the existing 

population of non-emergency stationary 

diesel engines. These 50,000 nonemergency diesel engines emit 

approximately 72 percent of the total 

HAP emissions, 66 percent of the total 

PM emissions, and 62 percent of the 

total NOX emissions from existing nonemergency stationary diesel engines. 

This information is based on data from 

the Power Systems Research Database 

that was presented in Tables 1–4 of 

EPA’s January 24, 2008 ANPRM for 

stationary diesel engines emission 

standards (73 FR 4136). 

For these reasons, EPA concluded that 

it can achieve the highest level of HAP 

emission reduction relative to cost, 

while requiring controls where 

appropriate, by requiring more stringent 

emission standards on non-emergency 

stationary diesel engines with a power 

rating greater than 300 HP. For these 

reasons and considering the higher level 

of HAP reductions achieved from 

engines greater than 300 HP and the 

reduced annual cost of control, EPA 

believes that requiring above-the-floor 

levels that rely on oxidation catalyst 

control is appropriate for engines greater 

than 300 HP. EPA solicits comments 

and data on whether 300 HP is the 

appropriate size division for setting 

beyond-the-floor MACT standards 

requiring the use of add-on controls. 

Specifically, EPA is seeking comment 

on whether it would be appropriate to 

extend the more stringent standards to 

engines that are less than 300 HP. 

Of further consideration are the cobenefits that would be achieved by the 

use of oxidation catalyst as it will 

reduce other pollutants such as CO and 

PM. Taking into account the reductions 

in CO and PM associated with applying 

oxidation catalyst to non-emergency CI 

engines, the cost per ton of pollutants 

reduced decreases. The total co-benefits 

of this proposed regulation are 

presented in a separate memorandum 

titled ‘‘Impacts Associated with 

NESHAP for Existing Stationary RICE,’’ 

which provides the costs and emissions 

impacts of this regulation. These 

emission estimates are also summarized 

in Chapter 4 of the RIA. 

EPA believes that the emission 

reductions associated with use of 

oxidation catalysts, taking into account 

the costs of such controls, are justified 

under section 112(d). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing MACT to be the level that is 

achieved by applying oxidation catalyst 

to non-emergency CI engines greater 

than 300 HP, which is 4 ppmvd of CO 

at 15 percent O2, or 90 percent CO 

efficiency. A fuller discussion of EPA’s 

analysis of regulatory alternatives 

above-the-floor is presented in the 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Above-the-Floor 

Determination for Stationary RICE.’’ 

While these proposed HAP emission 

standards would not require the use of 

CDPFs, EPA notes that when compared 

to oxidation catalysts, CDPFs provide 

significantly greater reductions in levels 

of PM from diesel engines, which are a 

significant health concern. PM 

emissions from these engines contain 

several constituents, including black 

carbon and trace amounts of metallic 

HAP. EPA estimates that the range of 

PM2.5 emission reductions would 

increase from 2,600 tons to 7,600 tons 

if CDPFs are used rather than oxidation 

catalysts. 

The contribution of black carbon 

emissions to global climate is being 

evaluated in a number of scientific 

forums.3 4 EPA is interested in 

comments and information on other 

regulatory and non-regulatory 

approaches that could help address 

black carbon emissions from existing 

stationary diesel engines. 

Sources may wish to review whether 

it is appropriate for some existing CI 

engines to use CDPFs to meet the 

requirements of this rule, given the 

considerable co-benefits of using CDPF. 

For example, the cost effectiveness 

associated with reducing PM2.5 with 

oxidation catalysts on a 300 HP diesel 

engine is $27,000 per ton, while using 

a CDPF improves the cost effectiveness 

to about $9,000 per ton. These cost 

effectiveness numbers include any 

potential reductions of metallic HAP 

which would be emitted in the particle 

phase. EPA notes, however, that some 

have suggested that the use of CDPF on 

older uncontrolled engines may be more 

problematic than for newer engines that 

already have some level of engine 

control. 

One of the potential problems raised 

by industry are the difficulties with 

retrofitting CDPFs on mechanicallycontrolled engines versus those that use 

electronic controls. Furthermore, the 

diesel PM levels from older engines are, 

according to some, too high for efficient 

operation of a CDPF. EPA is requesting 

comment on the use of CDPF to meet 

the HAP standards for this rule and on 

the benefits generally of using CDPFs on 

older stationary CI engines. EPA also 

asks for comment on technical 

feasibility issues that might preclude the 

use of such devices on older diesel 

engines. 

Stationary diesel engines also emit 

trace amounts of metallic HAP. EPA 

believes that formaldehyde and CO are 

reasonable surrogates for total HAP, 

including these very small trace 

emissions of metals. Nonetheless, EPA 

is taking comment on whether there are 

more appropriate surrogates for metallic 

HAP from stationary diesel engines. 

EPA does not have data regarding the 

use of other surrogates for these 

emissions from stationary diesel 

engines, so EPA is soliciting data on any 

other such surrogates. 

The proposed rule requires the use of 

ULSD for existing non-emergency 

stationary diesel engines greater than 

300 HP with a displacement of less than 

30 liters per cylinder. The use of ULSD 

is necessary due to concerns about 

oxidation catalysts simultaneously 

oxidizing SO2 to form sulfate 

particulate. A limit on the diesel fuel 

sulfur level of 15 ppm will reduce the 

potential for increased sulfate emissions 

from diesel engines equipped with 

oxidation catalysts. The limit on fuel 

sulfur will also improve the efficiency 

of the oxidation catalyst. The use of 

ULSD will also enable stationary diesel 

engines to utilize CDPF if desired. EPA 

has already promulgated similar diesel 

fuel sulfur standards for highway and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

nonroad diesel engines and for new 

stationary diesel engines. 

e. Stationary Non-Emergency CI >500 

HP. A regulation covering existing 

stationary diesel engines greater than 

500 HP at major sources was 

promulgated in 2004. However, based 

on the MACT floor analysis conducted 

at that time, the regulation subjected 

existing diesel engines greater than 500 

HP at major sources to emission 

standards of no further emission 

control. 

However, due to the availability of 

technically feasible and reasonably costeffective technologies to control 

emissions from these existing large 

stationary CI engines, and the potential 

of reducing exhaust HAP (as well as 

PM), EPA is proposing to address HAP 

emissions from these existing diesel 

engines >500 HP pursuant to its 

authority under CAA section 112(d). 

As a result of our review of the 

Emissions Database, the MACT floor for 

CI non-emergency stationary RICE 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP is 40 ppmvd of 

CO at 15 percent O2. 

As part of our analysis of going 

beyond the MACT floor, EPA 

considered the emissions associated 

with the use of oxidation catalysts. 

Similar to EPA’s analysis of the 

emission reductions and costs 

associated with the use of oxidation 

catalysts for diesel engines from 300– 

500 HP, EPA believes the HAP emission 

reductions associated with use of 

oxidation catalysts, taking into account 

the costs of such controls, are justified 

under section 112(d). A fuller 

discussion of EPA’s analysis of 

regulatory alternatives above-the-floor is 

presented in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Above-the-Floor Determination for 

Stationary RICE.’’ 

EPA is proposing to address 

emissions from existing non-emergency 

CI engines greater than 500 HP located 

at major sources by limiting the CO to 

4 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or by 

reducing CO by 90 percent or more. The 

proposed standards are based on what is 

achieved by applying oxidation catalyst 

controls. Oxidation catalyst controls 

reduce HAP, CO, and PM from diesel 

engines. The proposed emission 

standard is in terms of CO, which has 

been shown to be an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP. Stationary diesel 

engines also emit trace amounts of 

metallic HAP. EPA believes that 

formaldehyde and CO are reasonable 

surrogates for total HAP, including these 

very small trace emissions of metals. 

Nonetheless, EPA is taking comment on 

whether there are more appropriate 

surrogates for metallic HAP from 

stationary diesel engines. EPA does not 

have data regarding the use of other 

surrogates for these emissions from 

stationary diesel engines, so EPA is 

soliciting data on any other such 

surrogates. 

For the same reasons provided above 

for non-emergency diesel engines 

between 300–500 HP, EPA is requiring 

the use of ULSD for non-emergency 

diesel engines above 500 HP. 

f. Stationary Emergency SI 

50≥HP≥500. As a result of our review of 

the Emissions Database and industry 

estimates, EPA determined the MACT 

floor for SI emergency stationary RICE 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP is 2 ppmvd of 

formaldehyde at 15 percent O2. 

As part of EPA’s beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis, EPA considered add-on 

controls for this subcategory. However, 

the same issues apply to emergency SI 

engines as to emergency CI engines; in 

particular, the cost-effectiveness of such 

controls for HAP reduction on 

emergency engines and questions about 

the feasibility of such controls on 

emergency engines. According to the 

Population Database there are no SI 

emergency stationary RICE greater than 

or equal to 50 HP and less than or equal 

to 500 HP using catalyst type controls. 

Therefore, it is not appropriate to 

require add-on controls on emergency SI 

engines. EPA also found no other 

techniques appropriate to go beyond the 

MACT floor. MACT is therefore 

equivalent to the MACT floor. 

g. Stationary Non-Emergency 2SLB 

50≥HP≤500. EPA selected the best 

performing 12 percent of engines for 

formaldehyde, identified the 

corresponding CO tests, and averaged 

the CO emissions from the 

corresponding tests. As a result, the 

MACT floor for non-emergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE greater than or equal to 

50 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP 

is 85 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2. 

As part of EPA’s beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis, EPA considered 

applying oxidation catalyst controls to 

this subcategory and estimated the cost 

per ton of HAP removed. EPA believes 

the costs to be reasonable for engines 

250 HP and above equipped with 

oxidation catalyst and can be justified in 

light of the significant reductions of 

HAP that would be achieved. For 

example, the cost effectiveness of 

reducing HAP from 2SLB engines in the 

300 to 500 HP size range is about $2,900 

per ton. Oxidation catalysts can reduce 

HAP and CO from stationary sparkignition engines by approximately 90 

percent. The Emissions Database did not 

indicate any other proven and costeffective control technologies or other 

methods that can reduce HAP emissions 

from 2SLB engines to levels lower than 

those achieved by oxidation catalysts. 

The proposed emission limit is in terms 

of CO, which has been shown to be an 

appropriate surrogate for HAP. EPA 

believes the HAP emission reductions 

associated with use of oxidation 

catalysts, taking into account the costs 

of such controls, are justified. Therefore, 

MACT for engines 250 HP and above is 

the level that is achievable by applying 

oxidation catalyst and is 8 ppmvd of CO 

at 15 percent O2 or 90 percent CO 

efficiency. MACT for engines below 250 

HP is equivalent to the MACT floor. 

h. Non-Emergency 4SLB 50≥HP≤249. 

According to the Population Database, 

there are no non-emergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE greater than or equal to 

50 HP and less than or equal to 249 HP 

using catalyst type controls. 

EPA reviewed formaldehyde 

emissions tests from 4SLB engines. EPA 

selected the best performing 12 percent 

of engines for formaldehyde and 

identified the corresponding CO values 

from the top 12 tests for formaldehyde. 

The corresponding CO values were then 

averaged. As a result, the MACT floor 

for 4SLB stationary RICE greater than or 

equal to 50 HP and less than or equal 

to 249 HP is 95 ppmvd of CO at 15 

percent O2. 

As part of EPA’s beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis, EPA considered 

applying oxidation catalyst controls to 

this subcategory. However the cost per 

ton of HAP removed was determined to 

be too significant and to outweigh the 

expected HAP reductions from these 

stationary engines. Therefore, MACT is 

equivalent to the MACT floor. 

i. Non-Emergency 4SLB 250≥HP≤500. 

For non-emergency 4SLB engines 

between 250 and 500 HP, EPA found 

that 5.7 percent of the population is 

controlled with aftertreatment that 

yields HAP reductions, particularly 

oxidation catalysts. 

As part of EPA’s beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis, EPA considered 

applying oxidation catalyst and 

estimated the cost per ton of HAP 

removed. The use of oxidation catalysts 

on these engines can achieve 90 percent 

HAP reductions. EPA concluded that 

the control costs associated with 

installing oxidation catalysts are 

reasonable for this type of stationary 

engine, and thus can be justified 

considering the significant reductions of 

HAP that would be achieved by using 

oxidation catalysts. Oxidation catalysts 

can reduce HAP and CO from stationary 

spark-ignition engines. The proposed 

emission limit is in terms of CO, which 

has been shown to be an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP. EPA believes the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9709 

HAP emission reductions associated 

with use of oxidation catalysts, taking 

into account the costs of such controls, 

are justified. The Emissions Database 

did not indicate any other proven and 

cost-effective control technologies or 

other methods that can reduce HAP 

emissions from 4SLB engines to levels 

lower than those achieved by oxidation 

catalysts. 

EPA determined that the appropriate 

numerical MACT level could be 

determined by analyzing uncontrolled 

levels of HAP and reducing the levels by 

the expected reductions from oxidation 

catalysts. EPA analyzed formaldehyde 

emissions from 4SLB tests for engines 

without add-on controls. EPA took the 

average of the best performing 12 

percent of engines for formaldehyde and 

identified the corresponding CO values 

from the best performing 12 percent of 

tests. The corresponding CO values 

were then averaged. The result for 4SLB 

stationary RICE greater than or equal to 

250 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP 

is 95 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2. 

Given an expected 90 percent 

reduction from the use of oxidation 

catalysts, MACT is 9 ppmvd of CO at 15 

percent O2 or 90 percent CO efficiency. 

A fuller discussion of EPA’s analysis of 

regulatory alternatives above-the-floor is 

presented in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Above-the-Floor Determination for 

Stationary RICE.’’ 

j. Non-Emergency 4SRB 50≥HP≤500. 

For SI non-emergency stationary 4SRB 

engines greater than or equal to 50 HP 

and less than or equal to 500 HP, EPA 

found that 5.6 percent of the population 

are using catalyst type controls, 

according to the Population Database. 

The add-on control that typically 

applies to this subcategory of engines is 

NSCR. 

As part of EPA’s beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis, EPA considered the 

application of NSCR to such engines. 

The Emissions Database provided no 

other proven and cost effective emission 

control methods currently available 

which can reduce HAP emissions from 

4SRB engines to levels lower than that 

achieved through NSCR control. 

The technology is proven, has been 

applied to thousands of rich burn 

engines, and is efficient at reducing 

HAP emissions. EPA considered 

applying NSCR and estimated the cost 

per ton of HAP removed. EPA believes 

the costs are reasonable and appropriate 

and can be justified considering the 

significant reductions of HAP that 

would be achieved by using NSCR on 

this subcategory of engines. For 

example, the cost effectiveness of 

reducing HAP from stationary 4SRB 

engines in the 300 to 500 HP size range 

is about $5,000 per ton. 

Other pollutants are also reduced 

through the use of NSCR including 

significant reductions in NOX and CO 

emissions. Taking into consideration the 

emission reductions achieved by 

applying NSCR to 4SRB engines greater 

than 50 HP, the cost per ton of 

emissions reduced is favorable for this 

type of stationary engines. A fuller 

discussion of EPA’s analysis of 

regulatory alternatives above-the-floor is 

presented in the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Above-the-Floor Determination for 

Stationary RICE.’’ 

EPA determined that the appropriate 

numerical MACT level could be 

determined by analyzing uncontrolled 

levels of HAP and reducing the levels by 

the expected reductions from NSCR. 

EPA analyzed formaldehyde emissions 

from 4SRB engines without add-on 

controls and averaged the emissions 

from the best performing 12 percent of 

engines. The result for 4SRB stationary 

RICE greater than or equal to 50 HP and 

less than or equal to 500 HP is 2 ppmvd 

of formaldehyde at 15 percent O2. 

Therefore, MACT is the level that is 

achievable by applying NSCR and is 200 

ppbvd of formaldehyde at 15 percent O2

or 90 percent formaldehyde efficiency. 

2. Engines at Area Sources 

Under section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA 

developed a national strategy to address 

air toxic pollution from area sources. 

The strategy is part of EPA’s overall 

national effort to reduce toxics, but 

focuses on the particular needs of urban 

areas. Section 112(k) requires EPA to list 

area source categories and to ensure 90 

percent of the emissions from area 

sources are subject to standards 

pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA. 

Under section 112(k), the CAA 

specifically mandated that EPA develop 

a strategy to address public health risks 

posed by air toxics from area sources in 

urban areas. Section 112(k) also 

mandates that the strategy achieve a 75 

percent reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted by 

stationary sources. As mentioned, 

stationary RICE are listed as a source 

category under the Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy developed under the authority 

of sections 112(k) and 112(c)(3) of the 

CAA. These area sources are subject to 

standards under section 112(d). 

Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA 

indicates that EPA may elect to 

promulgate standards or requirements to 

area sources ‘‘which provide for the use 

of generally available control 

technologies or management practices 

by such sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ For 

determining emission limitations, GACT 

standards can be more flexible 

requirements than MACT standards. For 

example, the CAA provisions for setting 

GACT do not require setting control 

baseline or ‘‘floor’’ that is equal to the 

average emission levels achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of a type of 

facility, for existing sources, or the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best controlled similar source, for 

new sources. EPA is permitted to 

consider costs and other factors during 

the GACT analysis. Control technology 

options available to stationary RICE 

located at area sources are the same as 

those discussed for engines located at 

major sources. 

The requirements being proposed in 

this action are applicable to stationary 

RICE located at area sources of HAP 

emissions. EPA has chosen to propose 

national requirements, which not only 

focus on urban areas, but address 

emissions from area sources in all areas 

(urban and rural). 

For stationary RICE, it would not be 

practical or appropriate to limit the 

applicability to urban areas and EPA has 

determined that national standards are 

appropriate. Stationary RICE are located 

in both urban and rural areas. In fact, 

there are some rural areas with high 

concentrations of stationary RICE. 

Stationary RICE are employed in various 

industries used for both the private and 

public sector for a wide range of 

applications such as generator sets, 

irrigation sets, air and gas compressors, 

pumps, welders, and hydro power units. 

Stationary RICE may be used by private 

entities for agricultural purposes and be 

located in a rural area, or it may be used 

as a standby generator for an office 

building located in an urban area. Other 

stationary RICE may operate at large 

sources for electric power generation, 

transmission, or distribution purposes. 

In previous rulemakings, EPA had 

determined that stationary RICE are 

located all over the U.S., and EPA 

cannot say that these sources are more 

prevalent in certain areas of the country. 

Therefore, for the source category of 

stationary RICE, EPA is proposing 

national requirements without a 

distinction between urban and nonurban areas. EPA requests comment on 

this approach and its appropriateness 

for today’s population of stationary 

RICE. 

For subcategories of larger engines, 

particularly those above 500 HP and 

those for which EPA has based MACT 

on the use of add-on controls, the 

control technologies that create the basis 

for the emission standards for engines 

located at major sources are readily 

available and feasible for all engines. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Further, for those cases where EPA is 

basing the MACT emission standards on 

add-on controls, the MACT standards is 

in all cases beyond the MACT floor. In 

these cases, EPA determined that costs 

associated with implementing HAPreducing technologies are reasonable 

and justified. Hence, there is no reason 

why GACT should be any different than 

MACT for larger engines located at area 

sources. Consequently, EPA has 

determined that for area sources that are 

non-emergency 2SLB engines greater 

than or equal to 250 HP, non-emergency 

4SLB engines greater than or equal to 

250 HP, non-emergency 4SRB greater 

than or equal to 50 HP, emergency CI 

engines greater than 500 HP, nonemergency CI engines greater than 300 

HP, landfill and digester gas engines 

greater than 500 HP, and emergency SI 

engines greater than 500 HP, GACT is 

based on the same emission controls as 

are discussed above for major sources. 

As discussed, GACT provides EPA 

more flexibility in setting requirements 

than MACT and can include available 

control technologies or management 

practices to reduce HAP emissions. EPA 

has determined that for area sources that 

are non-emergency 2SLB engines greater 

than or equal to 50 HP and less than 250 

HP, non-emergency 4SLB engines 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than 250 HP, emergency CI engines 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP, non-emergency 

CI engines greater than or equal to 50 

HP and less than or equal to 300 HP, 

engines less than 50 HP, landfill and 

digester gas engines greater than or 

equal to 50 HP and less than or equal 

to 500 HP, and emergency SI engines 

greater than or equal to 50 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP, EPA proposes 

that GACT is management practices. 

Management practices include several 

specific maintenance requirements that 

will help ensure that the exhaust 

emissions from these engines are 

minimized. Some of the management 

practices include changing oil and filter, 

changing spark plugs and replacement 

of air cleaners. EPA specifically requests 

comments on these management 

practices and asks commenters to 

provide information on any additional 

management practices that may be 

appropriate for these engines. A 

maintenance plan is required in order to 

help keep records that the management 

practices are being followed. 

Although add-on controls are 

technically feasible for some engines 

located at area sources, control costs are 

high and EPA believes that it is possible 

to achieve reasonable controls using 

management practices. For example, 

capital costs associated with installing 

an oxidation catalyst on a 200 HP diesel 

engine are about $2,100 with annual 

costs of $700. Such costs are significant 

particularly when one considers that the 

cost per ton of this option is on the 

order of $72,000 per ton of HAP 

reduced. Considering the high cost per 

ton of HAP reduced, it is difficult to 

justify requiring add-on controls on 

these engines. 

Furthermore, EPA is attempting to 

minimize the burden of the proposed 

rule, specifically on small businesses 

and individual owners and operators. 

EPA does not believe that management 

practices would be a substantial burden 

on owners and operators such as private 

owners and small entities. 

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Limits 

With respect to the exemption from 

emission standards during periods of 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction in 

the General Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) (exemption from non-opacity 

emission standards) and (h)(1) 

(exemption from opacity and visible 

emission standards)), we note that on 

December 19, 2008, in a decision 

addressing a challenge to the 2002, 2004 

and 2006 amendments to those 

provisions, the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 

SSM exemption. Sierra Club v. EPA 

2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25578 (D.C. Cir. 

Dec. 19, 2008). We are still evaluating 

the recent court decision, and the time 

for appeal of that decision has not yet 

run. However, in light of the court 

decision, EPA is proposing not to apply 

the SSM exemption for non-opacity 

standards set forth in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 

to this NESHAP. The SSM exemption 

for opacity and visible emissions 

standards in 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) is not 

relevant here because the standards 

proposed in this action do not constitute 

opacity or visible emission standards. 

EPA recognizes that there are different 

modes of operation for any stationary 

source, and those modes generally 

include start-up, normal operations, 

shut-down, and malfunctions. EPA does 

not believe that emissions should be 

different during periods of shutdown 

compared to normal operations, but 

EPA does believe that emissions will 

likely be different during periods of 

startup and malfunction, particularly for 

engines relying on catalytic controls. 

EPA is proposing two options in this 

action for subcategories where the 

proposed emission standard is based on 

the use of catalytic controls. The first 

option is to have the same standards 

apply during both normal operation and 

periods of startup and malfunctions. 

While EPA is aware of the general 

properties of engine catalytic controls, 

our Emissions Database has no specific 

data showing that emissions during 

periods of startup and malfunction are 

different than during normal operation. 

Furthermore, EPA does not have 

substantial information regarding the 

specific parameters (e.g. timing, 

temperature) of such differences in 

emissions. 

Although we lack specific data on 

emissions during start-up and 

malfunction, EPA recognizes that 

emissions are likely to differ during 

these periods for engines relying on 

catalytic controls. Accordingly, for 

subcategories where the proposed 

emission standard is based on the use of 

catalytic controls, EPA is also coproposing emission limitations that 

would apply to stationary RICE during 

periods of startup and malfunction in 

order to account for the different 

emissions characteristics of stationary 

internal combustion engines during 

startup and malfunction periods, 

compared to other periods of operation. 

In particular, engines using catalytic 

controls like OC and NSCR to reduce 

emissions cannot rely on the operation 

of such devices during periods of 

startup, because the engine exhaust 

temperatures need to increase up to a 

certain level for such controls to work 

effectively. In addition, add-on controls 

cannot be presumed to work reliably 

during periods of malfunction. 

Malfunctions may include failure of 

engine control systems that are essential 

for the proper performance and 

emissions of the engine. Engine 

malfunctions may affect the exhaust gas 

temperatures and composition of the 

exhaust gases in ways that could 

decrease the effectiveness or even 

damage permanently the emission 

control device. 

During startup operation with an OC, 

engine exhaust temperatures must reach 

about 250 to 300 degrees C in order to 

work effectively. In the case of NSCR, 

exhaust gas temperatures must reach 

between 425 to 650 degrees C in order 

to work effectively. It can take about 15 

to 30 minutes of operation—depending 

on engine size—for exhaust 

temperatures to reach those temperature 

levels. Thus, for the subcategories of 

stationary RICE discussed above where 

the proposed emission standard is based 

on the use of catalytic controls, EPA is 

co-proposing that the standards during 

periods of startup and malfunction will 

be based on emissions expected from 

the best controlled sources prior to the 

full warm-up of the catalytic control. 

The standard is based on the emissions 

levels from the best controlled engines 

that do not include catalytic controls, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9711 

because prior to warm-up, the engine 

conditions do not allow for effective 

catalytic control. 

Under either co-proposal, for the 

subcategories of stationary RICE 

discussed above where the proposed 

emission limitations during normal 

operation are not based on the use of 

oxidation catalyst or NSCR, we are 

proposing the same emission limitations 

during startup and malfunction as 

during periods of normal operation. 

EPA requests comment on these 

proposed approaches to addressing 

emissions during start-up, shutdown 

and malfunction and the proposed 

standards that would apply during these 

periods. See Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this 

preamble, setting forth proposed 

standards using the approach of 

differentiating between periods of startup and malfunction and normal 

operations. EPA requests comment on 

other approaches to setting MACT 

standards during periods of start-up, 

shutdown or malfunction, and notes 

that an approach that sets a single 

MACT standard that applies at all times, 

including SSM periods, may result in a 

higher overall MACT standard, based on 

the need to account for variation of 

operations in setting MACT standards. 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 439 F.3d 875 (D.C. 

Cir. 2007) (holding that EPA may 

legitimately account for variability 

because ‘‘each [source] must meet the 

[specified] standard every day and 

under all operating conditions.’’ 

(quoting Mossville Environmental 

Action Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 

(D.C. Cir. 2004). EPA also asks for 

comment on the level of specificity 

needed to define the periods of startup 

and malfunction to assure clarity 

regarding when standards for those 

periods apply, including whether it 

should be based on the time necessary 

for an engine to warm to temperatures 

needed for effective catalytic control 

and whether maximum time limits 

should be included. 

C. How did EPA determine the 

compliance requirements? 

EPA discussed the specific 

compliance requirements that are being 

proposed in section III of the preamble. 

In general, EPA has attempted to reduce 

the burden on affected owners and 

operators. The following presents the 

rationale for the proposed compliance 

requirements. 

Stationary non-emergency RICE 

located at major sources that are less 

than 100 HP, stationary RICE located at 

area sources that are not subject to 

numerical emission standards, and all 

stationary emergency RICE are only 

subject to compliance requirements in 

the form of management practices to 

minimize emissions. EPA does not 

believe that the proposed management 

practices are a burdensome requirement, 

and it is expected that most owners and 

operators are already using such 

practices. It is in the owner’s best 

interest to operate and maintain the 

engine and aftertreatment device (if one 

is installed) properly. The proposed 

requirements minimize the burden on 

individual owners and operators and 

small entities, while ensuring that the 

engine and aftertreatment device is 

operated and maintained correctly. 

Further, EPA does not believe that it is 

reasonable to subject small stationary 

RICE and stationary emergency RICE to 

performance testing. Subjecting the 

engines to maintenance requirements 

will assist in minimizing and 

maintaining emissions below the 

emission standards. The cost of 

requiring performance testing on these 

engines would be too significant when 

compared to the cost of the unit itself 

and to the benefits of such testing. In 

addition, subjecting stationary RICE 

located at area sources that are not 

subject to numerical emission standards 

to performance testing would serve little 

purpose, given that the purpose of 

testing is to determine whether the 

engine is meeting numerical limits, 

which is unnecessary where no such 

limits apply. 

For stationary non-emergency RICE 

located at major sources that are greater 

than or equal to 100 HP and stationary 

RICE located at area sources that are 

subject to numerical emission 

standards, EPA determined that 

performance testing is necessary to 

confirm that the emission standards are 

being met. Again, EPA has attempted to 

reduce compliance requirements and is 

proposing a level of performance testing 

commensurate with ensuring that the 

emission standards are being met. 

Therefore, for non-emergency stationary 

RICE located at major sources that are 

greater than or equal to 100 HP and less 

than or equal to 500 HP and stationary 

RICE located at area sources that are 

subject to numerical emission 

standards, EPA chose to require an 

initial performance test only. However, 

if the engine is rebuilt or overhauled, 

the engine must be re-tested to 

demonstrate that it meets the emission 

standards. 

For existing non-emergency stationary 

RICE greater than 500 HP, testing every 

8,760 hours of operation of 3 years, 

whichever comes first, is also required. 

EPA believes such a requirement is 

appropriate for these size engines, but 

does not believe that further testing is 

necessary for smaller engines, i.e., those 

less than or equal to 500 HP. 

Subsequent performance testing is 

appropriate for engines greater than 500 

HP due to their size and frequency of 

operation. Plus, many States mandate 

more stringent compliance requirements 

for large engines. Finally, the RICE 

NESHAP for engines greater than 500 

HP located at major sources also 

required further performance testing 

following the initial compliance 

demonstration. 

Owners and operators of stationary 

non-emergency 2SLB, 4SLB, 4SRB, and 

CI RICE that are greater than 500 HP and 

are located at an area source, and 

stationary non-emergency CI RICE that 

are greater than 500 HP and are located 

at a major source must continuously 

monitor pressure drop across the 

catalyst and catalyst inlet temperature if 

the engine is equipped with oxidation 

catalyst or NSCR. These parameters 

serve as surrogates of the catalyst 

performance. The pressure drop across 

the catalyst can indicate if the catalyst 

is damaged or fouled, in which case, 

catalyst performance would decrease. If 

the pressure drop across the catalyst 

deviates by more than two inches of 

water from the pressure drop across the 

catalyst measured during the initial 

performance test, the catalyst might be 

damaged or plugged. If the catalyst is 

changed, the pressure drop across the 

catalyst must be reestablished. The 

catalyst inlet temperature is a 

requirement for proper performance of 

the catalyst. In general, the catalyst 

performance will decrease as the 

catalyst inlet temperature decreases. In 

addition, if the catalyst inlet 

temperature is too high, it might be an 

indication of ignition misfiring, 

poisoning, or fouling, which would 

decrease catalyst performance. In 

addition, the catalyst requires inlet 

temperatures to be greater than or equal 

to the specified temperature for the 

reduction of HAP emissions. 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

proposed EPA Method 323 from 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ, as an acceptable 

method for determining compliance 

with the formaldehyde emission 

limitation. The method is currently 

included as an optional test method for 

measuring formaldehyde in addition to 

EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348–03 

for stationary engines. EPA Method 323 

was first proposed as part of the 

NESHAP for Stationary Combustion 

Turbines published January 14, 2003 (68 

FR 1888) for measuring formaldehyde 

emissions from natural gas-fired 

sources. However, the method was not 

included in the final rule due to 

reliability concerns and EPA never 

promulgated EPA Method 323 as a final 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9712 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5Roman 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. 

standard in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. 

Due to unresolved technical issues 

associated with the method affecting 

engine test results, EPA has no plans to 

finalize EPA Method 323. Therefore, 

EPA finds it appropriate to propose to 

remove the method from subpart ZZZZ. 

D. How did EPA determine the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements? 

EPA discussed the specific reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements that are 

being proposed in section III of the 

preamble. In general, EPA has attempted 

to reduce the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden on affected 

owners and operators. The following 

presents the rationale for the proposed 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Owners and operators of emergency 

engines are required to keep records of 

their hours of operation (emergency and 

non-emergency). Owners and operators 

must install a non-resettable hour meter 

on their engines to record the necessary 

information. The owner and operators 

are required to record the time of 

operation and the reason the engine was 

in operation during that time. EPA 

believes these requirements are 

appropriate for emergency engines. The 

requirement to maintain records 

documenting why the engine was 

operating will ensure that regulatory 

agencies have the necessary information 

to determine if the engine was in 

compliance with the maintenance and 

testing hour limitation of 100 hours per 

year. 

EPA does not believe the 

recordkeeping requirements being 

placed upon owners and operators of 

stationary emergency engines are 

onerous. Emergency engines are often 

equipped with the equipment necessary 

to record hours of operation and 

operators may already be recording the 

information. Even as a brand new 

requirement, recording the time and 

reason of operation should take minimal 

time and effort. Further, recording the 

hours and reason for operation is 

necessary to assure that the engine is in 

compliance. Finally, these requirements 

are consistent with previously 

promulgated requirements affecting the 

same or similar engines, namely under 

the CI and SI NSPS. 

The reporting requirements being 

proposed in this rule are consistent with 

those required for engines subject to the 

2004 rule, i.e., stationary RICE greater 

than 500 HP located at major sources, 

and are based on the General Provisions. 

Owners and operators of existing 

emergency stationary RICE, existing 

stationary RICE that are less than 100 

HP and existing stationary RICE that are 

not subject to any numerical emission 

standards, do not have to submit the 

notifications listed in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A). Owners and operators of all 

other engines must submit an initial 

notification, notification of performance 

test, and a notification of compliance for 

each stationary RICE which must 

comply with the specified emission 

limitations. 

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The proposed rule is expected to 

reduce total HAP emissions from 

stationary RICE by 13,000 tons per year 

(tpy) beginning in the year 2013 or the 

first year the rule will become effective. 

EPA estimates that approximately 

290,000 stationary SI engines will be 

subject to the rule and nearly 1 million 

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 proposed 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 proposed rule will 

reduce other pollutants such as CO, 

NOX , and PM. The proposed rule is 

expected to reduce emissions of CO by 

more than 510,000 tpy in the year 2013. 

Emissions of NOX are expected to be 

reduced by 79,000 tpy in the year 2013. 

Reductions of PM are estimated at close 

to 2,600 tpy in the year 2013, and SOX

reductions are expected to be more than 

4,000 tpy in the year 2013. Emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) are 

estimated to be reduced by 90,000 tpy 

in the year 2013. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

The total national capital cost for the 

final rule for existing stationary RICE is 

estimated to be $528 million, with a 

total national annual cost of $345 

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 RICE,’’ which is 

available in the docket. 

C. What are the benefits? 

We estimate the monetized benefits of 

this proposed NESHAP to be $930 

million to $2.0 billion (2007$, 3% 

discount rate) in the year of full 

implementation (2013); higher or lower 

estimates are plausible according to 

alternate models identified by experts 

describing the relationship between 

PM2.5 and premature mortality.5 The 

benefits at a 7% discount rate are $850 

million to $1.8 billion (2007$). We base 

the estimate of human health benefits 

derived from the PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emission reductions on the 

approach and methodology laid out in 

the Technical Support Document that 

accompanied the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for the revision to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for Ground-level Ozone (NAAQS), 

March 2008. We generated estimates 

that represent the total monetized 

human health benefits (the sum of 

premature mortality and morbidity) of 

reducing PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions. A summary of the range of 

the monetized benefits estimates at 

discount rates of 3% and 7% is in Table 

4 of this preamble. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE RANGE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED RICE NESHAP 

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons) 

Total monetized 

benefits (millions 

of 2007 dollars, 

3% discount) 1

Total monetized 

benefits (millions 

of 2007 dollars, 

7% discount) 1

Direct PM2.5 ..................................................................................................................... 2,561 $550 to $1,200 ...... $500 to $1,100. 

PM2.5 precursors ............................................................................................................. 184,536 $380 to $820 ......... $350 to $740. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9713 

6Pope et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association. 287:1132– 

1141. 

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

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE RANGE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED RICE NESHAP— 

Continued 

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons) 

Total monetized 

benefits (millions 

of 2007 dollars, 

3% discount) 1

Total monetized 

benefits (millions 

of 2007 dollars, 

7% discount) 1

Grand total ............................................................................................................... .................... $930 to $2,000 ...... $850 to $1,800. 

1All estimates are for the analysis year (full implementation, 2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across 

rows. We assume that 40% of emissions reductions are from major point sources and 60% are from area sources. PM2.5 precursors reflect emission reductions of NOX, SOX, and VOCs. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, and the monetized benefits incorporate 

the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. Monetized benefits from HAP reductions are not included in these estimates. 

The specific estimates of benefits per 

ton of pollutant reductions included in 

this analysis are 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 proposed NESHAP 

we cite two key empirical studies, one 

based on the American Cancer Society 

cohort study 6 and the extended Six 

Cities cohort study.7 Alternate models 

identified by experts describing the 

relationship between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality would yield higher 

and lower estimates (Roman et al. 2008). 

EPA is exploring updates to the 

benefit-per-ton estimates, including two 

technical updates, as well as addressing 

the assumption regarding thresholds in 

the health impact function. For more 

information, please consult the RIA for 

this proposed rule that is available in 

the docket. 

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 benefits were divided 

by the emission reductions to create the 

benefit-per-ton estimates. Even though 

all fine particles are assumed to have 

equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between 

precursors because each ton of 

precursor reduced has a different 

propensity to form PM2.5. For example, 

NOX has a lower benefit-per-ton 

estimate than direct PM2.5 because it 

does not form as much PM2.5, thus the 

exposure would be lower, and the 

monetized health benefits would be 

lower. 

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 annualized costs of this 

rulemaking are estimated at $345 

million (2007 dollars) in the year of full 

implementation, and the benefits are 

estimated at $930 million to $2.0 billion 

(2007 dollars, 3% discount rate) for that 

same year. Thus, net benefits of this 

rulemaking are estimated at $590 

million to $1.6 billion (2007 dollars, 3% 

discount rate); higher or lower estimates 

are plausible according to alternate 

models identified by experts describing 

the relationship between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality. The net benefits at 

a 7% discount rate are $500 million to 

$1.5 billion (2007$). EPA believes that 

the benefits are likely to exceed the 

costs by a significant margin even when 

taking into account the uncertainties in 

the cost and benefit estimates. It should 

be noted that the range of benefits 

estimates provided above does not 

include ozone-related benefits from the 

reductions in VOC and NOX emissions 

expected to occur as a result of this final 

rule, nor does this range include 

benefits from the portion of total PM 

emissions reduction that is not PM2.5 or 

other hazardous air pollutants. We do 

not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide such 

estimates for this rulemaking. For more 

information, please refer to the RIA for 

this proposed rule that is available in 

the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

EPA does not anticipate any adverse 

non-air health, environmental or energy 

impacts as a result of this proposed rule. 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comments and 

Participation 

EPA seeks full public participation in 

arriving at its final decisions, and 

strongly encourages comments on all 

aspects of this proposed rule from all 

interested parties. Whenever applicable, 

full supporting data and detailed 

analysis should be submitted to allow 

EPA to make maximum use of the 

comments. The Agency invites all 

parties to coordinate their data 

collection activities with EPA to 

facilitate mutually beneficial and costeffective data submissions. 

EPA is requesting specific comment 

on the proposed emission standards for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB engines 

greater than or equal to 250 HP and 

existing non-emergency 4SRB engines 

greater than or equal to 50 HP. 

Specifically, EPA is seeking comment 

on the appropriateness of setting more 

stringent emission standards for certain 

existing rich burn engines than what is 

currently required for other rich burn 

engines already regulated. For example, 

the proposed emission standards for 

existing non-emergency 4SRB engines 

greater than or equal to 50 HP is 200 

ppbvd of formaldehyde or 90 percent 

formaldehyde reduction, whereas the 

current emission standards for existing 

and new non-emergency 4SRB engines 

greater than 500 HP at major sources is 

350 ppbvd and 75 percent formaldehyde 

reduction. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

the proposed formaldehyde emission 

standards that apply to rich burn 

engines. EPA is particularly interested 

in determining whether it would be 

appropriate to include a VOC emission 

standard in place of or as an alternative 

to the formaldehyde emission standards. 

If so, EPA is requesting information on 

what an appropriate VOC emission 

standard should be. Commenters are 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9714 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

encouraged to submit stationary engine 

test data containing VOC emissions preand post-catalyst as well as any engine 

test data that includes both 

formaldehyde and VOC emissions from 

the same engine. In addition, we ask for 

comments and data on whether there 

are other more appropriate surrogates 

than formaldehyde and CO for the 

metallic HAP that are emitted by 

stationary diesel engines. 

EPA is proposing emission standards 

for existing stationary non-emergency CI 

engines that are greater than 300 HP that 

are based on the use of oxidation 

catalyst. EPA solicits comments on 

whether 300 HP is the appropriate size 

division for setting beyond-the-floor 

MACT standards requiring the use of 

add-on controls. Specifically, EPA is 

seeking comment on whether it is 

feasible or appropriate to extend the 

more stringent standards to engines that 

are less than 300 HP. EPA also requests 

comments on the possibility of requiring 

CDPFs for existing diesel engines, rather 

than oxidation catalysts, and, if so, 

which subcategory or subcategories of 

stationary diesel engines would be most 

appropriate for control using CDPFs. 

The use of CDPFs would help achieve 

the same level of HAP reduction as 

oxidation catalysts, with a higher level 

of control of diesel PM. EPA is also 

interested in comments and information 

on other regulatory and non-regulatory 

approaches for addressing black carbon 

emissions from existing stationary 

diesel engines. 

EPA also requests comments on other 

proven technologies that may be able to 

achieve significant HAP reductions. For 

example, we request comment on the 

possible requirement of using closed 

crankcase ventilation systems on 

engines affected by this proposed rule. 

Closed crankcase ventilation systems 

have been used in mobile engine 

applications for many years. 

In addition, EPA is requesting 

comment on the fuel requirements. EPA 

is proposing that existing stationary 

non-emergency CI engines greater than 

300 HP with a displacement of less than 

30 liters per cylinder must meet the 

ULSD fuel requirement of 40 CFR 

80.510(b). These engines would be 

required to be operated with fuel having 

a sulfur content of less than or equal to 

15 ppm. EPA is specifically interested 

in whether it would be appropriate to 

require all existing stationary CI engines 

(except those with a displacement of 

greater than or equal to 30 liters per 

cylinder) to use 15 ppm sulfur fuel. EPA 

is interested in determining if smaller 

engines, i.e., those less than 300 HP, and 

emergency engines should be subject to 

fuel requirements also and is requesting 

comment on this issue. Furthermore, 

EPA is also interested in receiving 

comments and information about the 

option of adding a requirement to the 

regulations that would prohibit the 

burning of crankcase oil or mixing 

crankcase oil with fuel in engines 

equipped with exhaust aftertreatment 

technologies. EPA is interested in 

information on whether such practice 

has the potential for increasing HAP 

emissions or damaging exhaust 

aftertreatment technologies that would 

be used to meet the proposed emission 

limits. 

Finally, EPA is requesting comment 

on the management practices being 

proposed for some subcategories of 

engines located at area sources. EPA is 

interested to receive information on any 

additional management practices that 

could be required. 

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. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 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 this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1975.06. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to Agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

This proposed rule will not require 

any notifications or reports beyond 

those required by the General 

Provisions. The recordkeeping 

requirements require only the specific 

information needed to determine 

compliance. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after 

sources must comply) is estimated to be 

3,422,879 labor hours per year at a total 

annual cost of $15,554,937. 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 $30,772,678 

per year. There are no additional 

operation and maintenance costs for the 

requirements over the 3-year period of 

the ICR. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0708. Submit any comments 

related to the ICR for this proposed rule 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this action 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9715 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after March 5, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by April 6, 2009. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 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, so 

therefore a number of size standards are 

utilized in this analysis. For the 9 

industries identified at the 6-digit 

NAICS code represented in this 

analysis, the employment size standard 

varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The 

annual sales standard is as low as 0.75 

million dollars and as high as 34 million 

dollars. In addition, for the electric 

power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate 

parent entity defined as having a total 

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

year. The specific SBA size standard is 

identified for each affected industry 

within the industry profile to support 

this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, we have concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (or SISNOSE). 

This certification is based on the 

economic impact of this proposed 

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). In this 

case, however, the number of small 

entities having annualized costs of 

greater than 1 percent of their sales is 

less than 10 percent. Hence, we 

conclude that there is no SISNOSE for 

this proposal. 

Although the proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

we nonetheless tried to reduce the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. We held meetings with 

industry trade associations and 

company representatives to discuss the 

proposed rule and included provisions 

to limit monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements to the extent possible. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed action 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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 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 one 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 

proposed 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 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 RICE located at 

area sources of HAP emissions. 

In compliance with section 205(a), we 

identified and considered a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives. The 

regulatory alternative upon which the 

rule is based is the least costly, most 

cost-effective alternative to achieve the 

statutory requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 112. 

1. Social Costs and Benefits 

The RIA prepared for the proposed 

rule, including the Agency’s assessment 

of costs and benefits, is detailed in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed RICE NESHAP’’ in the docket. 

Based on estimated compliance costs on 

all sources associated with the proposed 

rule and the predicted change in prices 

and production in the affected 

industries, the estimated social costs of 

the proposed rule are $345 million 

(2007 dollars). It is estimated that by 

2013, HAP will be reduced by 13,000 

tpy 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, 

methanol and the other HAP are not 

considered carcinogenic, but produce 

several other toxic effects. The proposed 

rule will also achieve reductions in 

511,000 tons of CO, approximately 

79,000 tons of NOX per year, about 

90,000 tons of VOC per year, and 

approximately 2,600 tons of PM per 

year, in the year 2013. Exposure to CO 

can affect the cardiovascular system and 

the central nervous system. Emissions of 

NOX can transform into PM, which can 

result in fatalities and many respiratory 

problems (such as asthma or bronchitis); 

and NOX can also transform into ozone 

causing several respiratory problems to 

affected populations. 

The total monetized benefits of the 

proposed rule range from $0.9 to $2.0 

billion. (2007 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 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

estimates of the future compliance costs 

of the proposed rule are discussed 

previously in this preamble. We do not 

believe that there will be any 

disproportionate budgetary effects of the 

proposed rule on any particular areas of 

the country, State or local governments, 

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

or particular industry segments. 

3. Effects on the National Economy 

The UMRA requires that we estimate 

the effect of the proposed rule on the 

national economy. To the extent 

feasible, we must estimate the effect on 

productivity, economic growth, full 

employment, creation of productive 

jobs, and international competitiveness 

of the U.S. goods and services if we 

determine that accurate estimates are 

reasonably feasible and that such effect 

is relevant and material. The nationwide 

economic impact of the proposed rule is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for RICE NESHAP’’ in the 

docket. This analysis provides estimates 

of the effect of the proposed rule on 

most of the categories mentioned above. 

The results of the economic impact 

analysis were summarized previously in 

this preamble. In addition, we have 

determined that the proposed 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 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

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 this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed 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 only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

EPA has prepared an analysis of energy 

impacts that explains this conclusion as 

follows below. 

With respect to energy supply and 

prices, EPA’s analysis suggests that at 

the industry level, the annualized costs 

represent a very small fraction of 

revenue (less than 0.7 percent). As a 

result, EPA 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, EPA examined publicly 

available data describing energy 

consumption for the electric power 

sector. The electric power sector is 

expected to incur more than 40 percent 

of the $345 million in compliance costs 

associated with the proposed rule, and 

the industry is expected to incur the 

greatest share of the costs relative to 

other affected industries. The Annual 

Energy Outlook 2009 (EIA, 2008) 

provides energy consumption data. 

Since this rule only affects diesel and 

natural gas-fired RICE, EPA’s analysis 

focuses on impacts of consumption of 

these fuels. As shown in Table 6 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) and less than 6.5 percent of 

U.S. natural gas consumption. As a 

result, any energy consumption changes 

attributable to the proposed rule should 

not significantly influence the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy 

nationwide. 

TABLE 6—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION (QUADRILLION BTUS): 2013 

Quantity 

Share of total 

energy use 

(percent) 

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

Residual fuel oil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.38 0.4 

Liquid fuels subtotal ......................................................................................................................................... 0.50 0.5 

Natural gas ...................................................................................................................................................... 6.27 6.1 

Steam coal ....................................................................................................................................................... 21.55 21.0 

Nuclear power .................................................................................................................................................. 8.53 8.3 

Renewable energy b ......................................................................................................................................... 4.80 4.7 

Electricity Imports ............................................................................................................................................ 0.08 0.1 

Total Electric Power Energy Consumption c .................................................................................................... 41.86 40.8 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9717 

TABLE 6—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION (QUADRILLION BTUS): 2013 

Quantity 

Share of total 

energy use 

(percent) 

Delivered Energy Use ...................................................................................................................................... 74.05 72.2 

Total Energy Use ...................................................................................................................................... 102.58 100.0 

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. 2008a. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Table 10. Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart 

A of the General Provisions, a source 

may apply to EPA for permission to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required or referenced testing methods, 

performance specifications, or 

procedures. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 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 

proposed 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 proposed rule is expected to 

reduce HAP emissions from stationary 

RICE and thus decrease the amount of 

such emissions to which all affected 

populations are exposed. 

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 25, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.6590 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory 

text and (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) An affected source which meets 

either of the criteria in paragraphs 

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

not have to meet the requirements of 

this subpart and of subpart A of this part 

except for the initial notification 

requirements of § 63.6645(f). 

* * * * * 

(3) A stationary RICE which is an 

existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean 

burn (2SLB) stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, an existing spark ignition 4 

stroke lean burn (4SLB) stationary RICE 

with a site rating of more than 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, an existing emergency 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, an 

existing limited use stationary RICE 

with a site rating of more than 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, or an existing stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 

brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions that combusts landfill 

gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 

percent or more of the gross heat input 

on an annual basis, does not have to 

meet the requirements of this subpart 

and of subpart A of this part. No initial 

notification is necessary. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.6595 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6595 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary 

RICE, excluding existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you 

must comply with the applicable 

emission limitations and operating 

limitations no later than June 15, 2007. 

If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, an 

existing stationary 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 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and 

operating limitations no later than 

[DATE 3 YEARS FROM THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULE]. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.6600 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6600 What emission limitations and 

operating limitations must I meet if I own or 

operate a stationary RICE with a site rating 

of more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions? 

* * * * * 

(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 and 2a to this subpart or operating 

limitations in Tables 1b and 2b to this 

subpart: an existing 2SLB stationary 

RICE or 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 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you 

must comply with the emission 

limitations in Table 2c to this subpart 

and the operating limitations in Table 

2b to this subpart which apply to you. 

5. The heading of section 63.6601 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 63.6601 What emission limitations must I 

meet if I own or operate a new or 

reconstructed 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? 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.6602 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6602 What emission limitations must I 

meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE with a site rating of equal 

to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions? 

If you own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

equal to or less than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the 

emission limitations in Table 2c to this 

subpart which apply to you. 

7. Section 63.6603 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6603 What emission limitations and 

operating limitations must I meet if I own or 

operate an existing stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions? 

If you own or operate an existing 

stationary 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 Tables 1b and 2b to this 

subpart which apply to you. 

8. Section 63.6604 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6604 What fuel requirements must I 

meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary CI RICE? 

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

rating of more than 300 brake HP with 

a displacement of less than 30 liters per 

cylinder that uses diesel fuel, you must 

use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel. Existing nonemergency CI stationary RICE used in 

Guam, American Samoa, or the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands are exempt from the 

requirements of this section. 

9. Section 63.6605 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6605 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations and operating 

limitations in this subpart that apply to 

you at all times. 

* * * * * 

10. The heading of § 63.6611 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 63.6611 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations if I own or 

operate a new or reconstructed 4SLB SI 

stationary RICE with a site rating of greater 

than or equal to 250 and less than or equal 

to 500 brake HP located at a major source 

of HAP emissions? 

* * * * * 

11. Section 63.6612 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6612 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations if I own or 

operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake 

HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions or an existing stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions? 

If you own or operate an existing 

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 you are 

subject to the requirements of this 

section. 

(a) You must conduct the initial 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration according to 

Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart that apply 

to you within 180 days after the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your stationary RICE in § 63.6595 and 

according to the provisions in 

§ 63.7(a)(2). 

(b) An owner or operator is not 

required to conduct an initial 

performance test on a unit for which a 

performance test has been previously 

conducted, but the test must meet all of 

the conditions described in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The test must have been 

conducted using the same methods 

specified in this subpart, and these 

methods must have been followed 

correctly. 

(2) The test must not be older than 2 

years. 

(3) The test must be reviewed and 

accepted by the Administrator. 

(4) Either no process or equipment 

changes must have been made since the 

test was performed, or the owner or 

operator must be able to demonstrate 

that the results of the performance test, 

with or without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

or equipment changes. 

(5) The test must be conducted at any 

load condition within plus or minus 10 

percent of 100 percent load. 

§ 63.6620—[Amended]

12. Section 63.6620 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (c). 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.6625 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6625 What are my monitoring, 

installation, 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 aftertreatment 

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 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9719 

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 

stationary 4SRB 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 4SRB 

RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, air-to-fuel ratio controllers 

(AFRC) are required to be used with the 

operation of three-way catalysts/nonselective catalytic reduction. The AFRC 

must be maintained and operated 

appropriately in order to ensure proper 

operation of the engine and control 

device to minimize emissions at all 

times. 

14. Section 63.6640 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a); 

b. By revising paragraph (b); 

c. By revising paragraph (e); and 

d. By adding paragraph (f). 

§ 63.6640 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and operating limitations? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and operating limitation in 

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

Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart 

that apply to you according to methods 

specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each emission 

limitation or operating limitation in 

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

Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart 

that apply to you. These instances are 

deviations from the emission and 

operating limitations in this subpart. 

These deviations must be reported 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6650. If you change your catalyst, 

you must reestablish the values of the 

operating parameters measured during 

the initial performance test. When you 

reestablish the values of your operating 

parameters, you must also conduct a 

performance test to demonstrate that 

you are meeting the required emission 

limitation applicable to your stationary 

RICE. 

* * * * * 

(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 emergency 

stationary RICE, or an existing 

stationary RICE which fires landfill gas 

or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent 

or more of the gross heat input on an 

annual basis. 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 or an existing emergency 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions, 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. 

There is no time limit on the use of 

emergency stationary ICE in emergency 

situations. 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. Emergency stationary 

RICE may operate 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. 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. 

15. Section 63.6645 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.6645 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) If you 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, an 

existing stationary RICE located at an 

area source of HAP emissions, a 

stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, or 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, except 

existing stationary RICE less than 100 

HP, existing stationary emergency RICE, 

and existing stationary RICE not subject 

to any numerical emission standards, 

you must submit all of the notifications 

in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and 

(f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and (h) 

that apply to you by the dates specified. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.6655 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.6655 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(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 subject to 

management practices as shown in 

Table 2d to this subpart, you must keep 

records of the maintenance conducted 

on the stationary RICE in order to 

demonstrate that you operate and 

maintain the stationary RICE and 

aftertreatment control device (if any) 

according to your own maintenance 

plan. 

(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 that does not meet the 

standards applicable to non-emergency 

engines or an existing emergency 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9720 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

stationary RICE located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that does not meet the 

standards applicable to non-emergency 

engines, 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 nonemergency operation. 

17. Section 63.6665 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.6665 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 8 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If 

you own or operate a new or 

reconstructed stationary RICE with a 

site rating of less than or equal to 500 

brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions (except new or 

reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than 

or equal to 250 and less than or equal 

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: 

An existing 2SLB RICE, an existing 

4SLB stationary RICE, an existing 

stationary RICE that combusts landfill 

gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 

percent or more of the gross heat input 

on an annual basis, an existing 

emergency stationary RICE, or an 

existing limited use stationary RICE. 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 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. 

18. 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 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

emission limitations for existing, new 

and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE 

at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 

percent: 

For each * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation at all times, except during periods of 

startup, or malfunction * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation during periods of startup, or malfunction 

* * * 

1. 4SRB stationary RICE .................................... a. reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more. If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 

19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you may reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more until June 15, 2007 or 

limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less 

at 15 percent O2. 

b. limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd 

or less at 15 percent O2.

19. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Operating Limitations for Existing, 

New, and Reconstructed Spark 

Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 

HP Located at a Major Source of HAP 

Emissions and Existing 4SRB 

Stationary RICE >500 HP Located at an 

Area Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6603, 

63.6630 and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following operating emission 

limitations for existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and existing 4SRB 

stationary RICE >500 HP located at an 

area source of HAP emissions: 

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

1. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more (or by 75 percent or 

more, if applicable) and using NSCR; or 

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

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

plus or minus 10 percent from the pressure drop across the catalyst 

measured during the initial performance test; and 

2. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 

ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and using NSCR; or 

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

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

less than or equal to 1250 °F. 

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent or more and using NSCR; or 

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 200 

ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and using NSCR. 

3. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more (or by 75 percent or 

more, if applicable) and not using NSCR; or 

a. comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator. 

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 

ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and not using NSCR; or 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9721 

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

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent or more and not using NSCR; or 

4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 200 

ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 and not using NSCR. 

20. 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 

4SLB Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located 

at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following 

emission limitations for new and 

reconstructed lean burn and new and 

reconstructed compression ignition 

stationary RICE at 100 percent load plus 

or minus 10 percent: 

For each * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation at all times, except during periods of 

startup, or malfunction * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation during periods of startup, or malfunction 

* * * 

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

more; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 259 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 12 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. If you commenced 

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

may limit concentration of formaldehyde to 

17 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2 until 

June 15, 2007. 

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

more; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 420 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

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 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 77 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. 

21. 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, 

Existing Compression Ignition 

Stationary RICE >500 HP, and 4SLB 

Burn Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located 

at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6601, 

63.6630, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following operating limitations 

for new and reconstructed lean burn 

and existing, new and reconstructed 

compression ignition stationary RICE: 

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

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

with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation 

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

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

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

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

plus or minus 10 percent from the pressure drop across the catalyst 

that was measured during the initial performance test; and 

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

the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 450 °F and 

less than or equal to 1350 °F. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9722 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

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

RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of 

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

comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator. 

22. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is added to read as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Emission Limitations for Existing 

Stationary RICE Located at a Major 

Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6601, 63.6602 and 

63.6604, you must comply with the 

following emission limitations for 

existing stationary RICE located at a 

major source of HAP emissions at 100 

percent load plus or minus 10 percent: 

For each * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation at all times, except during periods of 

startup, or malfunction * * * 

You must meet the following emission limitation during periods of startup, or malfunction 

* * * 

1. Non-Emergency 2SLB 50≥HP≤249 ............... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 85 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 85 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

2. Non-Emergency 2SLB 250≥HP≤500 ............. a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 8 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 85 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

3. Non-Emergency 4SLB 50≥HP≤249 ............... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 95 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 95 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

4. Non-Emergency 4SLB 250≥HP≤500 ............. a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 9 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 95 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

5. Non-Emergency 4SRB 50≥HP≤500 ............... a. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 200 ppbvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2. 

b. reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent or more. 

6. All CI 50≥HP≤300 ........................................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

7. Emergency CI 300>HP≤500 .......................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

8. Non-Emergency CI >300 HP ......................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 4 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

9. <50 HP ........................................................... a. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less 

at 15 percent O2. 

limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2. 

10. Landfill/Digester 50≥HP≤500 ........................ a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 177 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 177 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

11. Emergency SI 50≥HP≤500 ........................... a. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less 

at 15 percent O2. 

limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2. 

23. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is added to read as follows: 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Existing Stationary 

RICE Located at an Area Source of HAP 

Emissions 

As stated in §§ 63.6603 and 63.6625, 

you must comply with the following 

requirements for existing stationary 

RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions at 100 percent load plus or 

minus 10 percent: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9723 

For each * * * 

You must meet the following emission or operating limitation at all times, except during 

periods of startup, or malfunction * * * 

You must meet the following emission or operating limitation during periods of startup, or 

malfunction * * * 

1. Non-Emergency 2SLB 50≥HP≤249 ............... a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and ii. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

2. Non-Emergency 2SLB ≥250 HP .................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 8 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 85 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

3. Non-Emergency 4SLB 50≥HP≤249 ............... a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and ii. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

4. Non-Emergency 4SLB ≥250 HP .................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 9 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 95 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

5. Non-Emergency 4SRB ≥50 HP ...................... a. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 200 ppbvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2. 

b. reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent or more. 

6. Emergency CI 50≥HP≤500 ............................ a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours and 

replace as necessary; and 

ii. inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours and 

replace as necessary; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

7. Emergency CI >500 HP ................................. a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

8. Non-Emergency CI 50≥HP≤300 ..................... a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours and 

replace as necessary; and 

ii. inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours and 

replace as necessary; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

9. Non-Emergency CI >300 HP ......................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 4 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2; or 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 40 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

b. reduce CO emissions by 90 percent or 

more. 

10. <50 HP ......................................................... a. change oil and filter every 200 hours; i. change oil and filter every 200 hours; 

b. replace spark plugs every 500 hours (SI 

engines only); and 

ii. replace spark plugs every 500 hours (SI 

engines only); and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

11. Landfill/Digester Gas 50≥HP≤500 ................ a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and ii. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

12. Landfill/Digester Gas >500 HP .................... a. limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 177 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

limit concentration of CO in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 177 ppmvd or less at 15 

percent O2. 

13. Emergency SI 50≥HP≤500 ........................... a. change oil and filter every 500 hours; i. change oil and filter every 500 hours; 

b. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and ii. replace spark plugs every 1000 hours; and 

c. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours 

and replace as necessary. 

iii. inspect all hoses and belts every 500 

hours and replace as necessary. 

14. Emergency SI >500 HP ............................... a. limit concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less 

at 15 percent O2. 

limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 2 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2. 

24. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Subsequent Performance Tests 

As stated in §§ 63.6615 and 63.6620, 

you must comply with the following 

subsequent performance test 

requirements: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9724 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE with a 

brake horsepower >500 located at major 

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

located at major sources.

reduce CO emissions and not using a CEMS conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1

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

3. Stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 

>500 located at major sources.

limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust.

conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1

4. Existing non-emergency stationary RICE with 

a brake horsepower >500.

limit or reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions conduct subsequent performance tests every 

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

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

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

25. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

As stated in §§ 63.6610, 63.6611, 

63.6612, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you 

must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests for 

stationary RICE: 

For each * * * Complying with the 

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

1. 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE.a. reduce CO emissions ... i. measure the O2 at the 

inlet and outlet of the 

control device; and 

(1) portable CO and O2

analyzer.

(a) using ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) a (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

Measurements to determine O2 must be made 

at the same time as the 

measurements for CO 

concentration. 

ii. measure the CO at the 

inlet and the outlet of 

the control device.

(1) portable CO and O2

analyzer.

(a) using ASTM D6522–00 

(2005) a (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) 

or Method 10 of 40 CFR 

appendix A. The CO 

concentration must be at 

15 percent O2, dry 

basis. 

2. 4SRB stationary RICE .. a. reduce formaldehyde 

emissions.

i. select the sampling port 

location and the number 

of traverse points; and 

(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A § 63.7(d)(1)(i).

(a) sampling sites must be 

located at the inlet and 

outlet of the control device. 

ii. measure O2 at the inlet 

and outlet of the control 

device; and 

(1) Method 3 or 3A or 3B 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM 

Method D6522–00(2005).

(a) measurements to determine O2 concentration 

must be made at the 

same time as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration. 

iii. measure moisture content at the inlet and outlet of the control device; 

and 

(1) Method 4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, or 

Test Method 320 of 40 

CFR part 63, appendix 

A, or ASTM D 6348–03.

(a) measurements to determine moisture content 

must be made at the 

same time and location 

as the measurements 

for formaldehyde concentration. 

iv. measure formaldehyde 

at the inlet and the outlet of the control device.

(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A; or 

ASTM D6348–03,b provided in ASTM D6348– 

03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the 

percent R must be 

greater than or equal to 

70 and less than or 

equal to 130.

(a) formaldehyde concentration must be at 15 

percent O2, dry basis. 

Results of this test consist of the average of 

the three 1-hour or 

longer runs. 

3. Stationary RICE ............ a. limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO in 

the stationary RICE exhaust.

i. select the sampling port 

location and the number 

of traverse points; and 

(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A § 63.7(d)(1)(i).

(a) if using a control device, the sampling site 

must be located at the 

outlet of the control device. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9725 

For each * * * Complying with the 

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

ii. determine the O2 concentration of the stationary RICE exhaust at 

the sampling port location; and 

(1) Method 3 or 3A or 3B 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM 

Method D6522–00 

(2005).

(a) measurements to determine O2 concentration 

must be made at the 

same time and location 

as the measurements 

for formaldehyde concentration. 

iii. measure moisture content of the stationary 

RICE exhaust at the 

sampling port location; 

and 

(1) Method 4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, or 

Test Method 320 of 40 

CFR part 63, appendix 

A, or ASTM D 6348–03.

(a) measurements to determine moisture content 

must be made at the 

same time and location 

as the measurements 

for formaldehyde concentration. 

iv. measure formaldehyde 

at the exhaust of the 

stationary RICE; or 

(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A; or 

ASTM D6348–03,b provided in ASTM D6348– 

03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the 

percent R must be 

greater than or equal to 

70 and less than or 

equal to 130.

(a) Formaldehyde concentration must be at 15 

percent O2, dry basis. 

Results of this test consist of the average of 

the three 1-hour or 

longer runs. 

v. measure CO at the exhaust of the stationary 

RICE 

(1) Method 10 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, 

ASTM Method D6522– 

00 (2005),a Method 320 

of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM 

D6348–03.

(a) CO concentration must 

be at 15 percent O2, dry 

basis. Results of this 

test consist of the average of the three 1-hour 

longer runs. 

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

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

or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. bYou 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. 

26. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance with Emission 

Limitations and Operating Limitations 

As stated in §§ 63.6612, 63.6625 and 

63.6630, you must initially comply with 

the emission and operating limitations 

as required by the following: 

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

* * * 

1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

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

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and using oxidation 

catalyst, and using a CPMS.

i. The average reduction of emissions of CO 

determined from the initial performance test 

achieves the required CO percent reduction; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst inlet temperature during 

the initial performance test. 

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

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

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and not using oxidation catalyst.i. The average reduction of emissions of CO 

determined from the initial performance test 

achieves the required CO percent reduction; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9726 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

* * * 

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

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

at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions, and using a CEMS i. You have installed a CEMS to continuously 

monitor CO and either O2 or CO2 at both 

the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have conducted a performance evaluation of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average reduction of CO calculated 

using § 63.6620 equals or exceeds the required percent reduction. The initial test 

comprises the first 4-hour period after successful validation of the CEMS. Compliance 

is based on the average percent reduction 

achieved during the 4-hour period. 

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

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and using 

NSCR.

i. The average reduction of emissions of formaldehyde determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than 

the required formaldehyde percent reduction; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst inlet temperature during 

the initial performance test. 

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

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not 

using NSCR.

i. The average reduction of emissions of formaldehyde determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than 

the required formaldehyde percent reduction; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 

6. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

i. The average formaldehyde concentration, 

corrected to 15 percent O2, dry basis, from 

the three test runs is less than or equal to 

the formaldehyde emission limitation; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor catalyst inlet temperature according 

to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst inlet temperature during 

the initial performance test. 

7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust and not using 

oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

i. The average formaldehyde concentration, 

corrected to 15 percent O2, dry basis, from 

the three test runs is less than or equal to 

the formaldehyde emission limitation; and 

ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously 

monitor operating parameters approved by 

the Administrator (if any) according to the 

requirements in § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have recorded the approved operating 

parameters (if any) during the initial performance test. 

8. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at a major source, existing 

non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at an area source.

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

or formaldehyde, as applicable determined 

from the initial performance test is equal to 

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

9. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at a major source, existing 

non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and existing stationary non-emergency RICE 

≥100 HP located at an area source.

a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.

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

percent O2, dry basis, from the three test 

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


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9727 

27. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance with Emission 

Limitations and Operating Limitations 

As stated in § 63.6640, you must 

continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations as 

required by the following: 

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

by * * * 

1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

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

for CO to demonstrate that the required CO 

percent reduction is achieved; a and 

ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

data according to § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; and 

v. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

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

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and not using an 

oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.

i. Conducting semiannual performance tests 

for CO to demonstrate that the required CO 

percent reduction is achieved; a and 

ii. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b); 

and 

iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

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

located at a major source and CI stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major source.

a. Reduce CO emissions and using a CEMS i. Collecting the monitoring data according to 

§ 63.6625(a), reducing the measurements 

to 1-hour averages, calculating the percent 

reduction of CO emissions according to 

§ 63.6620; and 

ii. Demonstrating that the catalyst achieves 

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

iii. Conducting an annual RATA of your CEMS 

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

quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. 

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

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and using 

NSCR.

i. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

data according to § 63.6625(b); and 

ii. reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iii. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

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

major source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not 

using NSCR.

i. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b); 

and 

ii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iii. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

6. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake HP 

≥5,000 located at a major source.

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

formaldehyde to demonstrate that the required formaldehyde percent reduction is 

achieved a. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9728 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

by * * * 

7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

i. Conducting semiannual performance tests 

for formaldehyde to demonstrate that your 

emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit; a and 

ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature 

data according to § 63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; and 

v. Measuring the pressure drop across the 

catalyst once per month and demonstrating 

that the pressure drop across the catalyst is 

within the operating limitation established 

during the performance test. 

8. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source.

Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.

i. Conducting semiannual performance tests 

for formaldehyde to demonstrate that your 

emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit; a and 

ii. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b); 

and 

iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and 

iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages 

within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the 

performance test. 

9. Existing stationary RICE <100 HP located at 

a major or area source.

a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions; or i. Operating and maintaining the stationary 

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

b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.

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. 

10. Existing stationary RICE located at an area 

source not subject to any numerical emission 

limitations.

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

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

ii. Develop and follow your own maintenance 

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

of the engine in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. 

11. Existing stationary RICE >500 HP, except 

4SRB >500 HP located at major sources.

a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions; or i. Conducting performance tests every 8,760 

hours or 3 years, whichever comes first, for 

CO or formaldehyde, as appropriate, to 

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

is achieved or that your emissions remain 

at or below the CO or formaldehyde concentration limit. 

b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or 

CO in the stationary RICE exhaust. 

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

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

28. Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart ZZZZ 

As stated in § 63.6665, you must 

comply with the following applicable 

general provisions. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9729 

General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to 

subpart Explanation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

major sources.

Yes.

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

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

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

sources that become major sources.

Yes.

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

§ 63.6(e)(1) ............................................... Operation and maintenance .................... Yes ............... Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.6625 and in Tables 2d and 6 to 

this subpart. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ............................................... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(e)(3) ............................................... Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................................................ Applicability of standards except during 

startup shutdown malfunction (SSM).

No.

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

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

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

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

or visible emission standards. 

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

criteria.

Yes.

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

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

dates at §§ 63.6610, 63.6611, and 

63.6612. 

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

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

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

tests.

Yes.

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

§ 63.6620. 

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

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

under section 114 of the CAA.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

systems.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
9730 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to 

subpart Explanation 

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

System (COMS). 

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

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

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

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

to COMS. 

Except that § 63.8(e) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.8(g) ................................................... Data reduction ......................................... Yes ............... Except that provisions for COMS are not 

applicable. Averaging periods for demonstrating compliance are specified at 

§§ 63.6635 and 63.6640. 

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

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

Except that § 63.9(b) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

opacity test.

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

or VE standards. 

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

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

or VE standards. 

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

RATA is exceeded.

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

Except that § 63.9(g) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ......................................... Notification of compliance status ............. Yes ............... Except that notifications for sources 

using a CEMS are due 30 days after 

completion of performance evaluations. § 63.9(h)(4) is reserved. 

Except that § 63.9(h) only applies as 

specified in § 63.6645. 

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

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

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

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(v) .................................... Records related to SSM .......................... Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEMS.

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

reserved. 

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

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

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

or VE standards. 

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

§ 63.10(d)(5) ............................................. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports.Yes.

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

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

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

exceedances reports.

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

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

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


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9731 

General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to 

subpart Explanation 

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

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

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

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

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

[FR Doc. E9–4595 Filed 3–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS2