From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/02/2012 06:53 PM 

Subject: RICE Reconsideration Rule 

Hi Melanie, 

Attached is a summary of interagency comments received on the RICE proposal, as well as redline edits/comments 

on the preamble and SI RIA. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

(See attached file: EO_12866_NESHAP_RICE_Spark_Ignition_RIA_proposal_2060-

AQ58_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563.docx)(See attached file: 

RICE_2060AQ58_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563_May2.docx)(See attached file: 

EO_12866_RICE_NESHAP_Reconsideration_Proposal_2060-

AQ58_522012_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.docx)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE Spark Ignition Engines 2060-AQ58 Proposal 

20120315 

April 2012 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Proposed 

Reconsideration Existing Stationary Spark 

Ignition RICE NESHAP 

 

Draft Report

Prepared for 

Larry Sorrels 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

Air Economics Group (AEG) 

(MD-C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 
_________________________________ 

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. 

 

 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

for Existing Stationary Spark 

Ignition RICE NESHAP 

Draft Report

April 2012 

Prepared for 

Larry Sorrels 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

Air Benefit and Cost Group (ABCG) 

(MD-C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Prepared by 

Paramita Sinha 

Fern Braun 

Brooks Depro 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
iii 

CONTENTS 

Section Page

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Organization of this Report .................................................................................. 2-1 

3 Industry Profile ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution ............................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Goods and Services Used ......................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................... 3-4

3.2 Oil and Gas Extraction ....................................................................................... 3-11 

3.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-11

3.2.2 Goods and Services Used ....................................................................... 3-11

3.2.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................. 3-13

3.2.4 Case Study: Marginal Wells .................................................................. 3-17

3.3 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................................................. 3-18 

3.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-18

3.3.2 Goods and Services Used ....................................................................... 3-18

3.3.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................. 3-20

4 Regulatory Alternatives, Costs, and Emission Impacts ................................................ 4-1

4.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Proposed Amendments to SI RICE NESHAP ..................................................... 4-1 

4.2.1 Total Hydrocarbon Compliance (THC) Demonstration Option .............. 4-1

4.2.2 Proposed Amendment - Emergency Demand Response/Peak 

Shaving .................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Proposed Amendment - Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE 

Greater than 500 HP Located at Area Sources...... ................................ 4-6 
iv 

4.3 What Are the Pollutants Regulated by the Rule? ............................................... 4-11 

4.4 Cost Impacts....................................................................................................... 4-14

4.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 4-14

4.4.2 Control Cost Methodology .................................................................... 4-14

4.4.3 Control Cost Equations .......................................................................... 4-18

4.4.4 Summary ................................................................................................ 4-21

4.4.5 Caveats and Limitations for Cost Estimates .......................................... 4-35 

4.5 Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions ................................................... 4-36 

5 Economic Impact Analysis, Energy Impacts, and Social Costs ................................... 5-1

5.1 Compliance Costs of the Proposed Reconsidered Rule ....................................... 5-1 

5.2 Social Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 5-3 

5.3 How Might People and Firms Respond? A Partial Equilibrium Analysis .......... 5-4 

5.2.1 Changes in Market Prices and Quantities ................................................ 5-4

5.2.2 Regulated Markets: The Electric Power Generation, Transmission, 

and Distribution Sector ............................................................................ 5-6

5.2.3 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer 

and Producer Surplus ............................................................................... 5-7

5.4 Energy Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.5 Unfunded Mandates ........................................................................................... 5-10 

5.5.1 Future and Disproportionate Costs ........................................................ 5-10

5.5.2 Effects on the National Economy .......................................................... 5-10 

5.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................ 5-11 

5.7 Employment Impact Analysis ............................................................................ 5-11 

5.7.1 Employment Impacts from Pollution Control Requirements ................ 5-13

5.7.2 Employment Impacts within the Regulated Industry............................. 5-17

6 Small Entity Screening Analysis .................................................................................. 6-1

Deleted: 4-11

Deleted: 4-11

Deleted: 4-12

Deleted: 4-15

Deleted: 4-18
v 

6.1 Small Entity Data Set ........................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Small Entity Economic Impact Measures ............................................................ 6-2 

6.2.1 Model Establishment Receipts and Annual Compliance Costs ............... 6-2

6.3 Small Government Entities ................................................................................ 6-11 

7 Benefits of Emissions Reductions ................................................................................ 7-1  

7.1 Calculation of PM2.5 Human Health Co-Benefits ................................................ 7-1

7.2 Unquantified Benefits ........................................................................................ 7-13

7.2.1 HAP Benefits ......................................................................................... 7-13

7.2.2 Additional NO2 Co-Benefits .................................................................. 7-14

7.2.3 Ozone Co- Benefits ................................................................................ 7-16

7.2.4 Carbon Monoxide Co-Benefits .............................................................. 7-16 

7.2.5 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits..................................7-23 

7.3 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits ............... 7-25

7.4 Comparison of Co-Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 7-30

8 References for RIA ....................................................................................................... 8-1

 
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Page

3-1 Industrial Production Index (NAICS 2211) ................................................................ 3-3

3-2 Internal Combustion Generators by State: 2006 ......................................................... 3-4

3-3 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution Industry (NAICS 2211) ............................................ 3-6

3-4 Industrial Production Index (NAICS 211) ................................................................ 3-12

3-5 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Crude Petroleum and Natural 

Gas Extraction Industry (NAICS 211111) ................................................................ 3-15

3-6 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 

Industry (NAICS 211112) ......................................................................................... 3-16

3-7 Distribution of Establishments within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) .......... 3-19

3-8 Distribution of Revenue within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) .................... 3-20

3-9 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 

486) ............................................................................................................................ 3-22

3-10 Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas Industry (NAICS 48621): 2002 ................................ 3-22

5-1 Distribution of Engine Population by Horsepower Group .......................................... 5-4

5-2 Market Demand and Supply Model: With and Without Regulation ........................... 5-6

5-3 Electricity Restructuring by State ................................................................................ 5-9

6-1 Distribution of Engine Population by Size for All Industries ..................................... 6-8

6-2 Distribution of Compliance Costs by Engine Size for All Industries ......................... 6-9

7-1. Breakdown of Monetized PM2.5 Health Co-Benefits using Mortality Function 

from Pope et al. (2002) ................................................................................................ 7-7

7-2. Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered 

NESHAP in 2013 ...................................................................................................... 7-12

7-3. Breakdown of Monetized Co-Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered 

NESHAP by Engine Sizee ........................................................................................ 7-13

7-4. Estimated Chronic Census Tractl Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from 

outdoor sources (2005 NATA) .................................................................................. 7-18

7-5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA) .......................................................... 7-18

7-6. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline .................................................................................................................... 7-28
vii 

7-7. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population at Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure 

in the Baseline .......................................................................................................... 7-28

7-8. Net Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP at 3% 

Discount Rate ............................................................................................................ 7-33

7-9. Net Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP at 7% Discount 

Rate ............................................................................................................................ 7-34 
viii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Page

1-1 Summary of the Monetized Co-Benefits, Social Costs, and Net benefits for the 

Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010$) ................... 1-2 

3-1 Key Statistics: Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

(NAICS 2211) (2007) .................................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Direct Requirements for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 ............................................................................... 3-5

3-3 Firm Concentration for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 ............................................................................... 3-7

3-4 United States Retail Electricity Sales Statistics: 2008 ................................................ 3-8

3-5 FY 2010 Financial Data for 70 U.S. Shareholder-Owned Electric Utilities ............... 3-9

3-6 Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 2211 ....................... 3-9

3-7 Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2007 ............................................... 3-10

3-8 Key Statistics: Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111): 

(2007) ........................................................................................................................ 3-12

3-9 Key Statistics: Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112) (2007) .................. 3-13

3-10 Direct Requirements for Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211): 2002 ...................... 3-13

3-11 Key Enterprise Statistics by Employment Size for Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111): 2007 ....................................................... 3-17

3-12 Key Enterprise Statistics by Employment Size for Crude Natural Gas Liquid 

Extraction (NAICS 211112): 2007 ............................................................................ 3-17

3-13 Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 211 ....................... 3-18

3-14 Key Statistics: Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 48621) (2007) ...... 3-19

3-15 Direct Requirements for Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486): 2002 ..................... 3-21

3-16 Firm Concentration for Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 

48621): 2002 .............................................................................................................. 3-23

3-17 Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 486 ....................... 3-23

3-18 Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for Pipeline Transportation of Natural 

Gas (NAICS 48621): 2007 ........................................................................................ 3-24

4-1 Summary of Annual and Capital Costs Equations for Existing Stationary SI 

Engines ...................................................................................................................... 4-21

4-2 Summary of Major Source and Area Source Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP ........ 4-22

4-3 Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE 

NESHAP ................................................................................................................... 4-23

Deleted: 4-18

Deleted: 4-20

Deleted: 4-21
ix 

4-4 Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE 

NESHAP, by Size ...................................................................................................... 4-24

4-5 Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE 

NESHAP, by Number of Engines ............................................................................. 4-28

4-6 Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline for the SI RICE 

NESHAP ................................................................................................................... 4-33

4-7 Emissions Factors ...................................................................................................... 4-33

4-8 Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Emissions for the SI 

RICE NESHAP by 2013 ........................................................................................... 4-34

4-9 Summary of Major Source and Area Source Emissions Reductions for the SI 

RICE NESHAP by 2013 ........................................................................................... 4-34

5-1 Selected Industry-Level Annualized Compliance Costs as a Fraction of Total 

Industry Revenue: 2009 ............................................................................................... 5-3

5-2 Hypothetical Price Increases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs .................................... 5-5

5-3 Hypothetical Consumption Decreases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs ..................... 5-7

5-4 U.S. Electric Powera Sector Energy Consumption (Quadrillion BTUs): 2013 ........... 5-9 

5-5 Labor-based Employment Estimates for Reporting and Recordkeeping and Installing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Control Equipment Requirements for Proposed 

Reconsideration SI RICE NESHAP........................................................5-16 

6-1 Proposed NESHAP for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE): Affected Sectors and SBA Small Business Size Standards ............. 6-3

6-2 Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise: 2007 ($2009 

Million/Establishment) ................................................................................................ 6-4

6-3 Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise Receipt Range: 2007 

($2009/Establishment) ................................................................................................. 6-5

6-4 Representative Establishment Costs Used for Small Entity Analysis ($2009) ........... 6-7

7-1 Human Health Effects of PM2.5 ................................................................................... 7-2

7-2. General Summary of Monetized PM 2.5 –Related Health Co-Benefits Estimates 

for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010$) ...... 7-9

7-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 Co-Benefits for the 

Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP in 2013 ................................................ 7-10

7-4. All Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits from PM2.5 Benefits for the Proposed SI 

RICE Reconsidered NESHAP in 2013 ..................................................................... 7-11

7-5. Summary of the Annualized Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net 

Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE Reconsidered NESHAP in 2013 (millions 

of 2010$) ................................................................................................................... 7-31

Deleted: 4-22

Deleted: 4-26

Deleted: 4-31

Deleted: 4-31

Deleted: 4-32

Deleted: 4-32
1-1 

Section 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This proposed action is a reconsideration of the promulgated NESHAP for existing 

stationary SI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources, 

and existing stationary SI RICE of any site rating located at area sources. 

EPA estimates that complying with the proposed reconsidered national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary spark-ignition (SI) reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (RICE) will have an annualized cost of approximately $115 million 

per year (2009 or 2010 dollars) in the year of full implementation of the rule (2013). The total 

annualized costs of the proposed reconsidered rule are 55% less than those for the final SI RICE 

NESHAP promulgated in 2010. Using these costs, EPA estimates in its economic impact 

analysis that the NESHAP will have limited impacts on the industries affected and their 

consumers. Using sales data obtained for affected small entities in an analysis of the impacts of 

this rule on small entities, EPA expects that the NESHAP will not result in a SISNOSE 

(significant economic impacts for a substantial number of small entities), a result consistent with 

the conclusion for the final SI RICE NESHAP issued in 2010. EPA also does not expect 

significant adverse energy impacts based on Executive Order 13211, an Executive Order that 

requires analysis of energy impacts for rules such as this one that are economically significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

In the year of full implementation (2013), EPA estimates that the total monetized benefits 

of the proposed reconsidered NESHAP are $62 million to $150 million and $55 million to $140 

million, at 3% and 7% discount rates, respectively (Table 1-1). All estimates are in 2010 dollars 

for the year 2013. These estimates reflect the co-benefits from 9,600 tons of NOx emission 

reductions associated with implementing the controls to reduce hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 

required under this proposed reconsideration. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but 

most of the expert-based estimates fall between these estimates. The benefits from reducing other 

air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 22,200 tons of carbon 

monoxide (CO) and 1,800 tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) each year. In addition, 

ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this analysis. 

In the year of full implementation (2013), EPA estimates the net benefits of the proposed 

NESHAP are $-53 million to $35 million and $-60 million to $25 million at 3% and 7% discount 
1-2 

rates, respectively (Table 1-1). These estimates are “snapshots” of benefits and costs at year 2013 

and are in 2010 dollars. 
1-3 

Table 1-1. Summary of the Annualized Monetized Co-Benefits, Social Costs, and Net 

benefits for the Proposed Reconsideration SI RICE NESHAP in 2013 (millions 

of 2010$)1

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Total Monetized Benefits2 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance Costs3 $115 $115 

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-monetized Benefits 

Health effects from HAP exposure 

Health effects from CO, NO2, and ozone exposure 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

1

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

2

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health co-benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5

through reductions of PM2.5 precursors such as NOx and VOC. It is important to note that the monetized cobenefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. It is important to note that the 

monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range 

from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical 

composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would 

support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated 

using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components here. 

See Figure 7-1 for an illustration of the breakdown, or the RIA for the final Cross-States Air Pollution Rule (EPA, 

2011) for more information. 

3

 The annual compliance costs serve as a proxy for the annual social costs of this rule given the lack of difference 

between the two. The annual compliance costs are calculated using a 7 percent discount rate. 
2-1 

Section 2

INTRODUCTION 

EPA is proposing NESHAP for existing stationary SI RICE 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 

horsepower and are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The proposed 

amendments to the SI RICE NESHAP are provided in detail in Section 4 of this RIA. 

The rule is economically significant according to Executive Order 12866. As part of the 

regulatory process of preparing these standards, EPA has prepared a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA). This analysis includes an analysis of impacts to small entities as part of compliance with 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and an analysis of impacts 

on energy consumption and production to comply with Executive Order 13211 (Statement of 

Energy Effects). An analysis of economic impacts, along with an analysis of impacts on 

employment, is also included in this RIA. Finally, an analysis of the benefits of the rule is 

included in this RIA. It should be noted that the data that supports the analyses listed above have 

been updated where possible and appropriate from the data used in the RIA for the SI RICE 

NESHAP promulgated in 2010. 

2.1 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report supports and details the methodology and the results of the 

RIA: 

 Section 3 presents a profile of the affected industries. 

 Section 4 presents a summary of regulatory alternatives considered in the final rule, 

and provides the compliance costs of the rule. 

 Section 5 describes the estimated costs of the regulation and describes the economic 

impact analysis (EIA) methodology and reports market, welfare, energy, and 

employment impacts. 

 Section 6 presents estimated impacts on small entities. 

 Section 7 presents the benefits and net benefits (benefits- costs) estimates. 
3-1 

Section 3

INDUSTRY PROFILE 

This section provides an introduction to the industries affected by the rule, i.e., industries 

in which the spark-ignition (SI) RICE being regulated are found. SI RICE generate electric 

power, pump gas or other fluids, or compress air for machinery. The primary non-utility 

application of internal combustion (IC) engines is in the natural gas industry to power 

compressors used for pipeline transportation, field gathering (collecting gas from wells), 

underground storage tanks, and in-gas processing plants. RICEs are separated into three design 

classes: 2 cycle (stroke) lean burn, 4-stroke lean burn, and 4-stroke rich burn. Each of these have 

design differences that affect both baseline emissions as well as the potential for emissions 

control. 

These industries include the following: 

 electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211), 

 oil and gas extraction (including marginal wells) (NAICS 211), and 

 pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 48621). 

While this is not an exhaustive list of the industries affected by this proposed 

reconsideration rule, these three industries incur about 83 percent of the annualized costs of the 

rule. A full listing of all industries affected in this rulemaking can be found in Chapter 4. The 

purpose of this profile chapter is to give the reader a general understanding of the economic 

aspects of the industry; their relative size, relationships with other sectors in the economy, trends 

for the industries, and financial statistics. 

3.1 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

3.1.1 Overview 

Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) is an industry 

group within the utilities sector (NAICS 22). It includes establishments that produce electrical 

energy or facilitate its transmission to the final consumer. 

From 2002 to 2007, revenues from electric power generation grew about 18% to over 

$440 billion ($2007) (Table 3-1).1

 At the same time, payroll rose about 7% and the number of 

 

1

 We provide revenues from electric power generation for the years 2002 and 2007 for these are years of the 

Economic Census. We reference data from these Economic Censuses frequently in this industry profile and 

show revenues from this industry over this time frame due to availability of such data. 
3-2 

employees decreased by around 4%. The number of establishments rose by about 3%. Industrial 

production within NAICS 2211 has increased 26% since 1997 (Figure 3-1). 

Electric utility companies have traditionally been tightly regulated monopolies. Since 

1978, several laws and orders have been passed to encourage competition within the electricity 

market. In the late 1990s, many states began the process of restructuring their utility regulatory 

framework to support a competitive market. Following market manipulation in the early 2000s, 

however, several states have suspended their restructuring efforts. The majority (58%) of power 

generators controlled by combined heat and power (CHP) or independent power producers are 

located in states undergoing active restructuring (Figure 3-2). 

Table 3-1. Key Statistics: Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

(NAICS 2211) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 373,309 440,355 

Payroll ($106) 40,842 43,792 

Employees 535,675 515,335 

Establishments 9,394 9,642 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; American FactFinder; “Sector 22: EC0722I2: Utilities: Industry Series: Preliminary 

Comparative Statistics for the United States (2002 NAICS Basis): 2007 and 2002.” http://factfinder.census.gov
3-3 

Figure 3-1. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 2211) 

Source: The Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial Production” Series 

ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G2211.S <http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. 

(January 27, 2010). 

3.1.2 Goods and Services Used 

In Table 3-2, we use the latest detailed benchmark input-output data report by the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA) (2002) to identify the goods and services used in electric power 

generation. As shown, labor and tax requirements represent a significant share of the value of 

power generation. Extraction, transportation, refining, and equipment requirements potentially 

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

1997‐011997‐061997‐111998‐041998‐09

1999‐021999‐071999‐122000‐052000‐102001‐032001‐082002‐01

2002‐062002‐112003‐042003‐092004‐022004‐072004‐122005‐05

2005‐102006‐032006‐082007‐012007‐062007‐112008‐042008‐09

2009‐022009‐072009‐12

Index Value (Jan 2002=100)
3-4 

Figure 3-2. Internal Combustion Generators by State: 2006 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. “2006 EIA-906/920 Monthly Time 

Series.” 

associated with reciprocating internal combustion engines (oil and gas extraction, pipeline 

transportation, petroleum refineries, and turbine manufacturing) represent around 10% of the 

value of services. 

3.1.3 Business Statistics 

The U.S. Economic Census and Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) programs provide 

national information on the distribution of economic variables by industry, location, and size of 

business. Throughout this section and report, we use the following definitions: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 

Diesel and Natural Gas Internal

Combustion Generators By State

No Restructuring

Suspended Restructuring

Active Restructuring

100

50

10

1
3-5 

Table 3-2. Direct Requirements for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00100 Compensation of employees 20.52% 

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 13.71% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 6.16% 

212100 Coal mining 5.86% 

482000 Rail transportation 3.01% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 2.83% 

486000 Pipeline transportation 1.70% 

722000 Food services and drinking places 1.40% 

52A000 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 1.39% 

541100 Legal services 1.13% 

a

 These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

 Firm: A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic 

establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common 

ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for singleestablishment firms. For each multiestablishment firm, establishments in the same 

industry within a state are counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual 

payroll are summed from the associated establishments. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise; the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 
3-6 

In 2002, Texas had almost 1,000 power establishments, while California, Georgia, and 

Ohio all had between 400 and 500 (Figure 3-3). Hawaii, Nebraska, and Rhode Island all had 

fewer than 20 establishments in their states. 

Figure 3-3. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution Industry (NAICS 2211) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: Utilities: 

Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics: 2002.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008).. 

As shown in Table 3-3, the four largest firms owned over 1,200 establishments and 

accounted for about 16% of total industry receipts/revenue. The 50 largest firms accounted for 

almost 6,000 establishments and about 78% of total receipts/revenue. 

Investor-owned energy providers accounted for only 2% of retail electricity sold in the 

United States in 2008 (Table 3-4). In 2008, investor-owned energy provider companies with less 

than 50% of their assets regulated were unprofitable overall, while other companies in this 

category were profitable. (Table 3-5). In 2008, enterprises within NAICS 2211 had a pre-tax 

profit margin of 8.1% (Table 3-6). 

In 2002, about 82% of firms generating, transmitting, or distributing electric power had 

receipts of under $50 million (Table 3-7). However, these firms accounted for only 11% of 

employment, with 89% of employees working for firms with revenues in excess of $100 million. 

Establishments by State

Less than 100

100 - 199

200 - 349

350 - 500

More than 500
3-7 

Table 3-3. Firm Concentration for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 

Commodity Establishments 

Receipts/Revenue 

Number of 

Employees 

Employees per 

Amount ($10 Establishment 6) 

Percentage 

of Total 

All firms 9,394 $325,028 100.0% 535,675 57 

4 largest firms 1,260 $52,349 16.1% 68,432 54 

8 largest firms 2,566 $95,223 29.3% 151,575 59 

20 largest firms 3,942 $173,207 53.3% 271,393 69 

50 largest firms 5,887 $253,015 77.8% 408,021 69 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: Utilities: 

Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by Largest Firms for the United States: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 2008). 
3-8 

Table 3-4. United States Retail Electricity Sales Statistics: 2008 

Full-Service Providers Other Providers 

Item Investor-Owned Public Federal Cooperative Facility Energy Delivery Total Number of entities 3 62 1 25 1 NA NA 92 Number of retail customers 46,985 2,160,220 36 940,697 1 NA NA 3,147,939 Retail sales (103 megawatthours) 2,257 70,303 9,625 21,868 117 NA NA 104,170 Percentage of retail sales 2 67 9 21 0 — — 100 Revenue from retail sales ($106) 113 5,934 473 1,994 6 NA NA 8,520 Percentage of revenue 1.33 69.65 5.55 23.41 0.07 — — 100 Average retail price (cents/kWh) 5.01 8.44 4.91 9.12 5.25 NA NA 8.18 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. “State Electricity Profiles 2008.” DOE/EIA-0348(01)/2. p. 260. < 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2008.pdf>. 
3-9 

Table 3-5. FY 2010 Financial Data for 70 U.S. Shareholder-Owned Electric Utilities 

 Profit Margin Net Income Operating Revenues 

Investor-Owned Utilities 4.81% $27,728 $371,545 

Regulateda 7.25% $12,341 $158,657 

Mostly regulatedb

 8.50% $17,815 $175,218 

Diversifiedc

 -16.78% -$2,429 $37,671 

a 80%+ of total assets are regulated. 

b 50% to 80% of total assets are regulated. 

c Less than 50% of total assets are regulated. 

Source: Edison Electric Institute. “Income Statement: Q4 2010 Financial Update. Quarterly Report of the U.S. 

Shareholder-Owned Electric Utility Industry.” <http://www.eei.org>. 

Table 3-6. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 2009: NAICS 2211 

Number of enterprisesa 1,187 

Total receipts (103) $323,522,443 

Net sales(103

) $328,017,143 

Profit margin before tax 3.1% 

Profit margin after tax 2.0% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2000–

2009.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 
3-10 

Table 3-7. Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

(NAICS 2211): 2007 

Variable All Enterprises 

<20 

Employees

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 

500+ 

Employees 

Firms 1,687 630 670 251 136 

Establishments 9,611 687 1,110 999 6,815 Employment 503,134 3,622 31,455 42,527 425,530 Receipts ($103) $440,342,284 $8,364,773 $21,825,969 $41,370,375 $368,781,167 

Receipts/firm ($103) $261,021 $13,277 $32,576 $164,822 $2,711,626 

Receipts/establishment ($103) $45,817 $12,176 $19,663 $41,412 $54,113 

Receipts/employment ($) $875 $2,309 $694 $973 $867 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb07.htm>. 
3-11 

3.2 Oil and Gas Extraction 

3.2.1 Overview 

Oil and gas extraction (NAICS 211) is an industry group within the mining sector 

(NAICS 21). It includes establishments that operate or develop oil and gas field properties 

through such activities as exploring for oil and gas, drilling and equipping wells, operating onsite equipment, and conducting other activities up to the point of shipment from the property. 

Oil and gas extraction consists of two industries: crude petroleum and natural gas 

extraction (NAICS 211111) and natural gas liquid extraction (NAICS 211112). Crude petroleum 

and natural gas extraction is the larger industry; in 2002, it accounted for 93% of establishments 

and 75% of oil and gas extraction revenues. 

Industrial production in this industry is particularly sensitive to hurricanes in the Gulf 

Coast. In September of both 2005 and 2008, production dropped 14% from the previous month. 

(Figure 3-4). 

From 2002 to 2007, revenues from crude petroleum and natural gas extraction (NAICS 

211111) grew over 117% to almost $215 billion ($2007) (Table 3-8). At the same time, payroll 

grew 55% and the number of employees grew by 48%. The number of establishments dropped 

by over 17%; as a result, the average establishment revenue increased by 162%. Materials costs 

were approximately 18% of revenue over the period. 

From 2002 to 2007, revenue from natural gas liquid extraction (NAICS 211112) grew 

over 26% to about $42 billion (Table 3-9). At the same time, payroll dropped 18% and the 

number of employees dropped by 24%. The number of establishments dropped by 43%, resulting 

in an increase of revenue per establishment of about 122%. 

3.2.2 Goods and Services Used 

The oil and gas extraction industry has similar labor and tax requirements as the electric 

power generation sector. Extraction, support, power, and equipment requirements potentially 

associated with RICE (oil and gas extraction, support activities, electric power generation, 

machinery and equipment rental and leasing, and pipeline transportation) represent around 8% of 

the value of services (Table 3-10). 
3-12 

Figure 3-4. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 211) 

Source: The Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial Production” Series 

ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G211.S <http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. 

(January 27, 2010). 

Table 3-8. Key Statistics: Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111): 

($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) $98,667 $214,198 

Payroll ($106) $5,785 $8,980 

Employees 94,886 140,160 

Establishments 7,178 5,956 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: Mining: 

Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and 1997.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(November 26, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: EC0721I1: Mining: 

Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United States: 2007 ” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(April 27, 2010). 

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

1997‐011997‐061997‐111998‐041998‐091999‐021999‐071999‐122000‐052000‐10

2001‐032001‐082002‐012002‐062002‐112003‐042003‐092004‐022004‐072004‐122005‐052005‐102006‐032006‐082007‐012007‐062007‐112008‐042008‐09

2009‐022009‐072009‐12

Index Value (Jan 2002=100)
3-13 

Table 3-9. Key Statistics: Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) $33,579 $42,363 

Payroll ($106) $607 $501 

Employees 9,693 7,343 

Establishments 511 291 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: Mining: 

Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and 1997.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(November 26, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: EC0721I1: Mining: 

Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United States: 2007 ” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(April 27, 2010). 

Table 3-10. Direct Requirements for Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 8.93% 

V00100 Compensation of employees 6.67% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 6.36% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 1.91% 

213112 Support activities for oil and gas operations 1.51% 

221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1.47% 

541300 Architectural, engineering, and related services 1.24% 

532400 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing 1.20% 

33291A Valve and fittings other than plumbing 1.10% 

541511 Custom computer programming services 0.99% 

a

 These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

3.2.3 Business Statistics 

The U.S. Economic Census and SUSB programs provide national information on the 

distribution of economic variables by industry, location, and size of business. Throughout this 

section and report, we use the following definitions: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 
3-14 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

 Firm: A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic 

establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common 

ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for singleestablishment firms. For each multiestablishment firm, establishments in the same 

industry within a state are counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual 

payroll are summed from the associated establishments. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise; the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 

 As of 2007, there were 6,563 firms within the NAICS 211111 code, of which 6427 (98 

percent) were considered small businesses (Table 3-11). Within NAICS 211111, large firms 

compose about 2 percent of the firms, but account for 59 percent of employment and generate 

about 80 percent of estimated receipts listed under the NAICS. Within NAICS 211112, there 

are 139 firms, of which 95 (71 percent) were considered small businesses (Table 3-12). As 

shown in this table, large firms compose 29 percent of the firms, but account for 78 percent of 

employment and generate about 95 percent of estimated receipts. 

Enterprises within this industry generated $193 billion in total receipts in 2008. Including 

those enterprises without net income, the industry averaged an after-tax profit margin of 8.5% 

(Table 3-13). 
3-15 

Figure 3-5. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Crude Petroleum and Natural 

Gas Extraction Industry (NAICS 211111) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: Mining: 

Geographic Area Series: Industry Statistics for the State or Offshore Areas: 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(January 27, 2010). 

Establishments by State

Less than 100

100 - 249

250 - 499

500 - 1,000

More than 1,000
3-16 

Figure 3-6. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Natural Gas Liquid 

Extraction Industry (NAICS 211112) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: Mining: 

Geographic Area Series: Industry Statistics for the State or Offshore Areas: 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(January 27, 2010). 

Establishments by State

Less than 5

5 - 9

10 - 19

20 - 40

More than 40
3-17 

 

Table 3-11. Key Statistics for Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 

211111): 2007 

NAICS NAICS Description 

SBA Size 

Standard 

 Small 

Firms Large Firms Total Firms 

Number of Firms by Firm Size 

 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 500 6,329 95 6,424 

Total Employment by Firm Size 

 55,622 77,664 133,286 

Estimated Receipts by Firm Size ($1000) 

 44,965,936 149,141,316 194,107,252 

Note: *The counts of small and large firms in NAICS 486210 is based upon firms with less than $7.5 million in 

receipts, rather than the $7 million required by the SBA Size Standard. We used this value because U.S. Census 

reports firm counts for firms with receipts less than $7.5 million. **Employment and receipts could not be split 

between small and large businesses because of non-disclosure requirements faced by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, 

and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Size for the United States, All Industries: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/>

Table 3-12. Key Statistics for Crude Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112): 2007 

 NAICS Description 

SBA Size 

Standard 

 Small 

Firms Large Firms Total Firms 

Number of Firms by Firm Size 

 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 500 98 41 139 

 

Total Employment by Firm Size 

 1,875 6,648 8,523 

 

Estimated Receipts by Firm Size ($1000) 

 2,164,328 37,813,413 39,977,741 

Note: *The counts of small and large firms in NAICS 486210 is based upon firms with less than $7.5 million in 

receipts, rather than the $7 million required by the SBA Size Standard. We used this value because U.S. Census 

reports firm counts for firms with receipts less than $7.5 million. **Employment and receipts could not be split 

between small and large businesses because of non-disclosure requirements faced by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, 

and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Size for the United States, All Industries: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/>
3-18 

Table 3-13. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 211 

Number of enterprisesa 19,441 

Total receipts (103) $193,230,241 

Net sales(103

) $166,989,539 

Profit margin before tax 12.9% 

Profit margin after tax 8.5% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2004-

2007.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 

3.3 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas 

3.3.1 Overview 

Pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 48621) is an industry group within the 

transportation and warehousing sector (NAICS 48-49), but more specifically in the pipeline 

transportation subsector (486). It includes the transmission of natural gas as well as the 

distribution of the gas through a local network to participating businesses. 

From 2002 to 2007, natural gas transportation revenues fell by 29% to just over $16 

billion ($2007) (Table 3-14). At the same time, payroll decreased by 14%, while the number of 

paid employees decreased by nearly 25%. The number of establishments also fell by 8% from 

1,701 establishments in 2002 to 1,560 in 2007. 

3.3.2 Goods and Services Used 

The BEA reports pipeline transportation of natural gas only for total pipeline 

transportation (3-digit NAICS 486). In addition to pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 

4862), this industry includes pipeline transportation of crude oil (NAICS 4861) and other 

pipeline transportation (NAICS 4869). However, the BEA data are likely representative of the 

affected sector since pipeline transportation of natural gas accounts for 60% of NAICS 486 

establishments and 66% of revenues (Figures 3-8 and 3-9). 
3-19 

Table 3-14. Key Statistics: Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 48621) ($2007) 

Year 2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 16,368 20,797 

Payroll ($106) 2,086 2,064 

Employees 24,519 24,683 

Establishments 1,560 1,479 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: EC0748I1: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Preliminary Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002 and 

2007.” http://factfinder.census.gov (January 27, 2010). 

Figure 3-8. Distribution of Establishments within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 27, 2010). 

In Table 3-15, we use the latest detailed benchmark input-output data report by the BEA 

(2002) to identify the goods and services used by pipeline transportation (NAICS 486). As 

shown, labor, refineries, and maintenance requirements represent significant share of the cost 

associated with pipeline transportation. Power and equipment requirements potentially associated 

with reciprocating internal combustion engines (electric power generation and distribution) 

represent less than 2% of the value of services. 

60%

25%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

4862 Pipeline

Transportation of

Natural Gas

4869 Other Pipeline

Transportation

4861 Pipeline

Transportation of Crude

Oil
3-20 

Figure 3-9. Distribution of Revenue within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 27, 2010). 

3.3.3 Business Statistics 

The pipeline transportation of natural gas is clearly concentrated in the two states closest 

to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2002, Texas and Louisiana contributed to 31% of all 

pipeline transportation establishments in the United States (Figure 3-10) and 41% of all U.S. 

revenues. Other larger contributors with over 50 establishments in their states include Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Kansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. 

According to 2002 U.S. Census data, about 86% of transportation of natural gas 

establishments were owned by corporations and about 8% were owned by individual 

proprietorships. About 6% were owned by partnerships (Figure 3-11). As shown in Table 3-16, 

the four largest firms accounted for nearly half of the establishments, and just over half, 51%, of 

total revenue. The 50 largest firms accounted for over 1,354 establishments and about 99% of 

total revenue. The average number of employees per establishment was approximately 17 across 

all groups of firms. 

Enterprises within pipeline transportation (NAICS 486) generated $11.1 billion in total 

receipts in 2008. Including those enterprises without net income, the industry averaged an aftertax profit margin of 9.6% (Table 3-17). 

66%

19%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

4862 Pipeline

Transportation of

Natural Gas

4869 Other Pipeline

Transportation

4861 Pipeline

Transportation of Crude

Oil
3-21 

Table 3-15. Direct Requirements for Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct 

Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00100 Compensation of employees 14.78% 

324110 Petroleum refineries 13.55% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 6.07% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 4.94% 

333415 Air conditioning, refrigeration, and warm air heating equipment 

manufacturing 

4.40% 

561300 Employment services 4.26% 

5416A0 Environmental and other technical consulting services 3.04% 

541300 Architectural, engineering, and related services 3.04% 

420000 Wholesale trade 2.79% 

332310 Plate work and fabricated structural product manufacturing 2.72% 

5419A0 All other miscellaneous professional, scientific, and technical services 2.48% 

524100 Insurance carriers 2.38% 

531000 Real estate 2.33% 

52A000 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 1.76% 

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 1.41% 

541100 Legal services 1.19% 

221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1.13% 

a These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

The 2007 SUSB shows that 47% of all firms in this industry made under $5 million in 

revenue. Enterprises with revenue over $100 million provided an overwhelming share of 

employment in this industry (98%) (Table 3-18). 
3-22 

Figure 3-10. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Pipeline Transportation 

(NAICS 486) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Geographic Distribution—Pipeline transportation of natural gas: 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 

10, 2008). 

Figure 3-11. Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas Industry (NAICS 48621): 2002 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of Organization for the United 

States: 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 2008). 

Establishments by State

Less than 15

15 - 39

40 - 79

80 - 149

More than 150

86%

8% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Corporations Individual Proprietorships Partnerships
3-23 

Table 3-16. Firm Concentration for Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 

48621): 2002

Commodity Establishments 

Receipts/Revenue 

Number of 

Employees 

Employees per 

Amount ($10 Establishment 6) 

Percentage of 

Total 

All firms 1,431 $14,797 100% 23,677 16.5 

4 largest firms 698 $7,551 51% 11,814 16.9 

8 largest firms 912 $10,059 68% 15,296 16.8 

20 largest firms 1,283 $13,730 93% 21,792 17.0 

50 largest firms 1,354 $14,718 99% 23,346 17.2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by Largest Firms for the 

United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 2008). 

Table 3-17. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 486 

Number of enterprisesa 321 

Total receipts (103) $11,062,608 

Net sales (103

) $10,210,083 

Profit margin before tax 13.2% 

Profit margin after tax 9.6% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2004-

2007.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 
3-24 

Table 3-18. Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 48621): 2007 

Variable All Enterprises 

<20 

Employees

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 500+ Employees 

Firms 126 63 12 9 42 

Establishments 1.479 66 26 70 1,317 

Employment 24,683 241 382 1,479 22,581 

Receipts ($103) $20,796,681 N/A $518,341 $1,448,020 $18,498,143 

Receipts/firm ($103) $165,053 N/A $43,195 $160,891 $440,432 

Receipts/establishment ($103) 

$14,061 N/A $19,936 $20,686 $14,046 

Receipts/employment ($) 

$843 N/A $1,357 $979 $819 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Employee Size: 2007. 

http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2007/usalli_r07.xls. 
4-1 

Section 4

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, COSTS, AND EMISSION IMPACTS 

4.1 Background 

This section of the RIA includes a discussion of the regulatory alternatives considered for 

the proposed reconsidered rule, the costs associated with these regulatory alternatives, and the 

impacts on affected emissions (both HAP and non-HAP). All impacts presented are for the year 

of full implementation, 2013. Costs in this section are in 2009$. Costs in 2010$ presented 

elsewhere in the RIA are escalated values based on the 2009$ costs presented in this section. 

Although the estimates presented are annualized, they should be understood as a “snapshot” in 

analyzing costs. 

This proposal was developed to address certain issues that have been raised by different 

stakeholders through lawsuits, several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments and other communications. After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments, the EPA received several petitions for reconsideration, legal challenges, and other 

communications raising issues of practical implementability, and certain factual information that 

had not been brought to the EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The EPA has considered this 

information and believes that amendments to the rule to address certain of these issues are 

appropriate. Therefore, the EPA is proposing amendments to the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines under section 

112 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed amendments include alternative testing options for 

certain large spark ignition (generally natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark ignition stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines in sparsely populated areas, and alternative and less 

burdensome monitoring and compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The 

EPA is also proposing to include a limited temporary allowance for existing stationary 

emergency area source engines to be used for peak shaving and non-emergency demand 

response as part of the pre-existing allowance for such engines to be used for non-emergency use 

for 50 hours annually. In addition, the EPA is proposing, in both the NESHAP and in the new 

source performance standards for stationary internal combustion engines to increase the hours 

that stationary emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The proposed 

amendments also correct minor mistakes in the pre-existing regulations. The full preamble for 

the final SI RICE NESHAP and the rule itself can be reviewed at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/fr20au10.pdf. 

Comment [A1]: Please be consistent 

with base year throughout document. 

Comment [A2]: Please be more explicit 

about the implications of this caveat. 
4-2 

4.2 Proposed Amendments to SI RICE NESHAP 

4.2.1. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance (THC) Demonstration Option

4.2.1.1. Background 

 Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP and located at major 

sources and existing SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources have the option of meeting either a formaldehyde percent reduction or a formaldehyde 

concentration standard. Formaldehyde was established in the original 2004 RICE NESHAP as an 

appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB engines based on industry test data 

available at that time. Based on testing conducted at Colorado State University (CSU) of 

stationary lean burn engines, the EPA was able to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP for lean 

burn engines. Rich burn engines were not tested at CSU and the data the EPA had available at 

the time that were used to set the standards for rich burn engines did not support the same 

relationship between CO and HAP reductions for rich burn engines. Therefore, the EPA was 

unable to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP emissions for rich burn engines and the emission 

standard for rich burn engines was specified in terms of formaldehyde, the hazardous air 

pollutant emitted in the largest quantity from stationary engines. 

 The EPA has previously acknowledged that it is significantly more expensive and 

difficult to test for formaldehyde versus CO, but has been unable in the past to support including 

the same flexibility for rich burn engines as is currently in the rule for lean burn engines with the 

option to meet the standards in terms of either formaldehyde or CO. For these reasons and 

expecting that new data for rich burn engines may become available in the future for the EPA to 

review and reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the EPA requested comment on this issue when 

proposing NESHAP for stationary existing engines less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources 

and all stationary existing engines at area sources in 2009 (74 FR 9698). Specifically, the EPA 

solicited comment on whether it would be appropriate to include an alternative standard in terms 

of VOC and asked that commenters submit data supporting the relationship between HAP and 

VOC. Comments the EPA received back on the proposed rule asked that the formaldehyde 

standards for rich burn engines be replaced with emission standards for THC. The EPA 

determined at the time that it was not appropriate to adopt an alternative standard in terms of 

THC (or VOC) for rich burn engines and discussed the reasons why in the 2010 responses to 
4-3 

comments. Compliance with the formaldehyde standard in the rule is, therefore, currently 

demonstrated by initial and continuous performance testing for formaldehyde. 

 On October 19, 2010, engine manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha submitted a petition for 

reconsideration of the formaldehyde requirements. The EPA granted the petition for 

reconsideration on January 5, 2011. (In addition, on November 3, 2010, the Engine 

Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for judicial review of these requirements.) In the 

petition for reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha argued that formaldehyde is difficult and costly 

to measure. The petition requested that the HAP surrogate for 4SRB engines should be THC 

rather than formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha submitted data from testing it conducted 

illustrating that THC reduction across the catalyst is an appropriate surrogate for HAP reduction 

across the catalyst. According to the petitioner, testing for THC is easier and less costly and 

would substantially reduce the burden of the rule for owners and operators of these engines. 

Testing for formaldehyde emissions could cost more than double that of testing for THC 

emissions and on a nationwide basis the EPA estimates that replacing formaldehyde testing with 

THC testing would result in substantial compliance cost savings annually while achieving the 

same reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data submitted by Dresser-Waukesha. The data provided 

indicate that a strong relationship exists between percentage reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the surrogate for HAP emissions in the NESHAP) on rich burn 

engines using non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA indicate that 

if the NSCR is reducing THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB engines, formaldehyde emissions 

are guaranteed to be reduced by at least 76 percent, which is the percentage reduction required 

for the relevant engines. Indeed, the percentage reduction of formaldehyde is invariably well 

above the 76 percent level, and is usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the EPA agrees with the 

petitioner that for SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and meeting the NESHAP by showing a 

percentage reduction of HAP, it would be appropriate to allow sources to demonstrate 

compliance with the NESHAP by showing a THC reduction of at least 30 percent. Including an 

optional THC compliance demonstration option would reduce the burden of compliance 

significantly while continuing to achieve the same level of HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the same. Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to 

allow owners and operators of certain stationary 4SRB engines (i.e., the ones currently subject to 

a formaldehyde percent reduction requirement) to show compliance with an optional THC 

compliance demonstration option. The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are presented 

below. 
4-4 

4.2.1.2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to add an alternative method of demonstrating compliance with the 

NESHAP for stationary 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for existing stationary 4SRB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP that are located at area sources of HAP emissions that choose to meet the 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement of 76 percent or more. 

 Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the petition discussed above, the EPA 

is proposing to add a compliance demonstration option for stationary 4SRB engines meeting a 76 

percent or more formaldehyde reduction. The compliance demonstration option would be an 

alternative to the existing method of demonstrating compliance with the formaldehyde percent 

reduction standard, which is to test engines for formaldehyde. The alternative for owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines meeting a 76 percent or more formaldehyde reduction would be to 

test their engines for THC showing that the engine is achieving at least a 30 percent reduction of 

THC emissions. 

 Under the proposed amendments, existing and new stationary 4SRB engines greater than 

500 HP and located at major sources would still be required to reduce formaldehyde emissions 

by 76 percent or more or limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 parts per billion by volume, dry basis or less at 15 percent oxygen (O2). However, owners 

and operators choosing to meet the formaldehyde concentration limit would not have the THC 

demonstration compliance option, because EPA could not verify a clear relationship between 

concentrations of THC and concentrations of formaldehyde in exhaust from these SI 4SRB 

engines. The EPA is proposing that existing stationary 4SRB non-emergency engines greater 

than 500 HP located at area sources located in populated areas be subject to an equipment 

standard and required to install a catalyst. These engines would be subject to testing to 

demonstrate initially and on an ongoing basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or 

more, or alternatively that THC emissions are being reduced by 30 percent or more. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SRB engines less than or equal to 500 HP 

who are required to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

10.3 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 15 percent O2 do not have the 

option to demonstrate compliance using THC and must continue to demonstrate compliance by 

testing for formaldehyde following the methods and procedures specified in the rule. 
4-5 

 Owners and operators opting to use the THC compliance demonstration method must 

demonstrate compliance by showing that the average reduction of THC is equal to or greater 

than 30 percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde emissions and demonstrating compliance by using the THC compliance 

demonstration option must conduct performance testing using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A – Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 

Analyzer. Measurements of THC at the inlet and the outlet of the NSCR must be on a dry basis 

and corrected to 15 percent O2 or equivalent carbon dioxide content. To correct to 15 percent 

O2, dry basis, owners and operators must measure oxygen using Method 3, 3A or 3B of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, or ASTM Method D6522-00 (2005) and measure moisture using Method 4 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM 

D6348-03. Because owners and operators are complying with a percent reduction requirement, 

the method used must be suitable for the entire range of emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 25A is capable of measuring emissions down to 5 ppmv 

and is, therefore, an appropriate method for measuring THC emissions for compliance 

demonstration purposes. The EPA is allowing sources the option to meet a minimum THC 

percent reduction of 30 percent by using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde percent reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ. 

4.2.2. Proposed Amendment - Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving

 The EPA is proposing to revise the current provisions for stationary engines used for 

emergency demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing to amend are in 

§§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) 

allows a maximum of 15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation under 

certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) currently includes an allowance of 100 

hours per year for purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is proposing 

that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE be permitted to operate their engines as 

part of an emergency demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is permitted 

for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). Owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines can operate for emergency demand response during periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has declared 

an EEA Level 2 as defined in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability 

Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency and during periods where there is a 

deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 
4-6 

The hours spent for emergency demand response operation are added to the hours spent for 

maintenance and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. If the total time 

spent for demand response operation and maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the 

engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart and will need to meet all 

requirements for non-emergency engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be 

called to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or equivalent to maintain the 

reliability of the bulk power system, but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were installed prior to June 12, 

2006, there is currently no emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit on 

the use of emergency engines for routine testing and maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those 

engines were not the focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did not 

make any changes to the requirements for those engines as part of the 2010 amendments. For 

consistency, the EPA is now also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to operate their engines as part of a demand 

response program as well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for maintenance 

and testing. 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines in 40 

CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for engines subject to the RICE 

NESHAP. The NSPS regulations currently do not include such an allowance for emergency 

demand response operation. For the reasons discussed as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to 

allow stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand response programs and 

remain being considered emergency units, and for consistency across engine regulations, the 

EPA is proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under the NSPS regulations. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing to revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, 

to specify that emergency engines may participate in demand response programs for up to 100 

hours per year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of the emergency engines. 

 In addition to the changes the EPA is proposing related to emergency demand response 

operation, the EPA is also including a further provision for owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE located at area sources for the reasons discussed. Paragraph 

§63.6640(f) currently allows owners and operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate 

their engine for 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations. As currently written, the 50 hours 
4-7 

per year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for 

a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity; except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines 

may operate the engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand 

response program. As discussed, the 15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to 

participate in emergency demand response programs is being increased to 100 hours per year, 

but will also include hours spent towards maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the 

emergency engines. However, additionally, the EPA is also proposing that stationary emergency 

engines located at area sources be permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently 

allowed under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards any non-emergency operation, 

including operation as part of a financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving 

allowance would expire in 2017. The EPA is specifying that the power can only be used at the 

facility or towards the local system, and the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as part 

of a program with the local distribution system operator. The EPA is also clarifying that an 

engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak shaving, will be considered a non-emergency engine and 

subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

 To estimate emissions from emergency engines the EPA has previously estimated that 

these types of engines would on average operate for 50 hours per year. The average hours of 

operation for emergency engines is not expected to change based on the proposed amendments 

and 50 hours per year is still believed to be representative of emergency engine operation. 

Therefore, the emissions previously calculated remain appropriate. In terms of any revenue 

generated from participation in demand response and peak shaving programs, the EPA expects 

owners and operators will benefit financially, however, the EPA does not know to what extent. 

The EPA expects there will be savings and/or income generated through participation in 

emergency demand response programs and peak shaving operation, but the EPA has not 

accounted for any potential revenue in estimating the costs and benefits of the proposed 

amendments. It is uncertain how frequently stationary emergency engines would operate if they 

are called upon. Other factors, such as the annual revenue from demand response programs 

(which varies), are also uncertain making it problematic to estimate the economic benefit of such 

programs. As such, the EPA has not estimated any costs associated with the emergency engine 

amendments. 
4-8 

4.2.3 Proposed Amendment - Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources

4.2.3.1. Background 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the requirements that apply to existing stationary 

non-emergency 4 stroke SI RICE greater than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP emissions, 

which are generally natural gas fired engines. Currently, the RICE NESHAP requires owners and 

operators of such engines to 1) either meet a CO concentration limit of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 

percent O2 or reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or more, if the engines are 4SLB; and 2) to 

meet a formaldehyde concentration limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more, if the engines are 4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects that 

the standards would be met using aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 4SLB engines and 

NSCR for 4SRB engines. In addition to these emission requirements, owners and operators of 

existing stationary 4-stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are also subject to 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

After the final requirements for existing stationary SI engines greater than 500 HP at area 

sources were published on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0581), the American Petroleum Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0582), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-

0708-0584), and the Gas Processors Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0587) requesting 

that the EPA reconsider the requirements of the final rule. The petitioners expressed many 

similar concerns. As relevant to this rulemaking, petitioners stated that the EPA did not take into 

account the difference in population density and subsequently did not consider the difference in 

health impacts in remote versus more heavily populated locations. Inpetitioner’s opinion, there 

should be less concern about engines that are located farther away from people; the petitioners 

believed that the EPA has substantial latitude in requiring less stringent standards for owners and 

operators of stationary engines in remote areas. 

 While the EPA does not share all of the views of the petitioners regarding the difference 

between engines based on their location, the EPA does believe that it is reasonable to create a 

subcategory of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB engines above 500 HP located in areas 

remote from human activity. Engines located in remote areas that are not close to significant 

human activity may be difficult to access, may not have electricity or communications, and may 

be unmanned most of the time. The costs of the emission controls, testing, and continuous 

monitoring requirements may be unreasonable when compared to the HAP emission reductions 

Formatted: Highlight
4-9 

that would be achieved, considering that the engines are in sparsely populated areas. The EPA 

believes that establishing a subcategory for SI engines at area sources of HAP located in sparsely 

populated areas accomplishes the agency’s goals and is adequate in protecting public health. 

 The EPA is proposing to subcategorize sparsely populated engines using the existing 

DOT pipeline classification system. This system classifies locations based on their distance to 

pipelines covered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration safety 

regulations. The DOT system defines a class location unit as an onshore area that extends 220 

yards or 200 meters on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) 

length of pipeline. The DOT approach further classifies pipeline locations into Class 1 through 

Class 4 locations based on the number of buildings intended for human occupancy. A Class 1 

location is defined as an offshore area or any class location unit that has 10 or fewer buildings 

intended for human occupancy. Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry have indicated to the 

EPA that the DOT system is well-established and there would be substantial overlap between 

engines affected by the rule and covered by the DOT pipeline classification system. 

Incorporating this approach would also create harmonization between the EPA and DOT and 

would reduce the implementation and enforcement burden for states. Implementation for affected 

sources would also be less burdensome because the system is already in place and used by 

industry and covers the majority of these engines. Stakeholders have indicated they are required 

to review the class location status of pipeline segments annually. The EPA believes this approach 

is reasonable for defining the subcategory of remote engines for those engines that are associated 

with DOT-regulated pipelines. For those engines not associated with pipelines, the EPA is using 

similar criteria. An engine would be considered to be in sparsely populated areas if within 0.25 

mile radius of the engine there are 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

The EPA is proposing management practices as generally available control technologies 

for existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines located in 

sparsely populated areas. Given the remote location of the engines from human activity, the EPA 

believes that it is appropriate not to include requirements that would necessitate aftertreatment 

and extensive testing and monitoring. The EPA has previously estimated that the costs of 

oxidation catalyst for existing 4SLB and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources are $310 

and $150 million, for capital and annual costs, respectively. The capital and annual costs of the 

RICE NESHAP for existing 4SLB and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources would be 

$30 million and $12 million, respectively, if these proposed amendments are incorporated into 

the rule. Creating a subcategory of these engines for the ones located in sparsely populated areas 
4-10 

and not mandating emission controls would significantly reduce the cost of the rule for such 

engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines that are 

located in populated areas, the EPA is proposing an equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst that will have to be tested initially and annually to ensure 

that the catalyst is working properly and reducing emissions as required. In addition, these units 

will be required to have devices to shut down the engine if the catalyst is exposed to dangerous 

temperatures or have continuous monitoring equipment installed to record catalyst inlet 

temperatures. The EPA is proposing shorter test duration and less rigorous methods than 

currently required while still ensuring that HAP reductions remain at expected levels for these 

engines located in populated areas. The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed 

below. 

4.2.3.2. What are the Proposed Amendments? 

 Owners and operators of engines in sparsely populated areas would have to conduct a 

review of the surrounding area every 12 months to determine if the nearby population has 

changed. Stakeholders have indicated that they visit these facilities annually at a minimum. If 

the engine no longer meets the criteria for a sparsely populated area the owner and operator must 

within 1 year comply with the emission standards specified below for populated areas. Owners 

and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB greater than 500 HP at area sources that are 

in sparsely populated areas as described above would be required to perform the following: 

•Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first; 

•Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; and 

•Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes 

first, and replace as necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil analysis program as described in §63.6625(i) of the 

rule in order to extend the specified oil change requirement. The oil analysis must be performed 

at the same frequency specified for changing the oil in Table 2d of the rule. The analysis 

program must at a minimum analyze the following three parameters: Total Acid Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. The condemning limits for these parameters are as follows: 

Total Acid Number increases by more than 3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram 

Comment [A3]: Wouldn’t the cost 

reduction for these engines be even higher 

since EPA just argued that the compliance 

costs for engines in rural areas are higher 

than average? 
4-11 

from Total Acid Number of the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 

percent from the viscosity of the oil when new; or percent water content (by volume) is greater 

than 0.5. If all of these condemning limits are not exceeded, the engine owner or operator is not 

required to change the oil. If any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator must 

change the oil within 2 days of receiving the results of the analysis; if the engine is not in 

operation when the results of the analysis are received, the engine owner or operator must change 

the oil within 2 days or before commencing operation, whichever is later. The owner or operator 

must keep records of the parameters that are analyzed as part of the program, the results of the 

analysis, and the oil changes for the engine. The analysis program must be part of the 

maintenance plan for the engine. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB area source engines above 

500 HP in sparsely populated areas would also have to operate and maintain the stationary RICE 

and aftertreatment control device (if any) according to the manufacturer's emission-related 

written instructions or develop their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent 

practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. 

 For engines in populated areas, i.e., existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP at area sources that are located on DOT Class 2 through Class 4 

pipeline segments or, for engines not associated with pipelines, that do not meet the 0.25 mile 

radius with 5 or less buildings criteria, the EPA is proposing to adopt an equipment standard 

requiring the installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP emissions. Owners and operators of 

existing area source 4SLB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in populated areas would 

be required to install an oxidation catalyst. Owners and operators of existing area source 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in populated areas would be required to install 

NSCR. Owners and operators must conduct an initial test to demonstrate that the engine achieves 

at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions or a CO concentration level of 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2, if the engine is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and operators must conduct an 

initial performance test to demonstrate that the engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO 

reduction or a 30 percent THC reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB engine. The initial test must 

consist of three test runs. Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, except that each 

test run conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data 

phase measurement. To measure CO, emission sources must use the CO methods already 
4-12 

specified in subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The 

THC testing must be conducted using EPA Method 25A. 

 The owner or operator of both engine types must also use a high temperature shutdown 

device that detects if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high, or, alternatively, the owner or 

operator can monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously and maintain the temperature 

within the range specified in the rule. For 4SLB engines the catalyst inlet temperature must 

remain at or above 450°F and at or below 1,350°F. For 4SRB engines the temperature range 

must be greater than or equal to 750°F and less than or equal to 1,250°F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in addition to the initial performance test conduct annual 

checks of the catalyst to ensure proper catalyst activity. The annual check of the catalyst must at 

a minimum consist of one 15-minute run using the methods discussed above, except that each 

test run conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data 

phase measurement. Owners and operators of 4SLB engines must demonstrate during the 

catalyst activity test that the catalyst achieves at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions or 

that the engine exhaust CO emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that their catalyst is reducing CO emissions by 75 

percent or more, or alternatively, that THC emissions are being reduced by at least 30 percent 

during the catalyst activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do not exceed the levels required for the initial test or 

annual checks of the catalyst, then the catalyst is considered to be working properly. If the 

emissions exceed the specified pollutant levels in the rule, the exceedance(s) is/are not 

considered a violation, but the owner or operator would be required to shut down the engine and 

take appropriate corrective action (e.g., repairs, clean or replace the catalyst, as appropriate). A 

follow-up test must be conducted within 7 days of the engine being started up again to 

demonstrate that the emission levels are being met. If the retest shows that the emissions 

continue to exceed the specified levels, the stationary RICE must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the engine may not operate, except for purposes of start-up and testing, until 

the owner/operator demonstrates through testing that the emissions do not exceed the levels 

specified. 
4-13 

4.2.3.3 Compliance Date 

The EPA has received some questions regarding whether the compliance dates for 

engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and this proposed reconsideration will be extended. 

Affected sources that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about having 

sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance date, which is May 3, 2013, for 

existing stationary CI RICE and October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with compliance in the event that the 

EPA does not finalize changes that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in this 

action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, and October 19, 2013, compliance 

dates, because there are many engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, we note that sources that are affected by the 

reconsideration and that may need additional time to install controls to comply with the 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to install controls, as specified in 40 

CFR 63.6(i). 

4.3 What Are the Pollutants Regulated by the Rule? 

The proposed reconsideration rule regulates emissions of HAP. Available emissions data 

show that several HAP, which are formed during the combustion process or which are contained 

within the fuel burned, are emitted from stationary engines. The HAP which have been measured 

in emission tests conducted on SI stationary RICE include: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 

acrolein, methanol, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, hexane, xylene, 

naphthalene, PAH, methylene chloride, and ethylbenzene. 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. 

For the standards included in this action, EPA believes that previous determinations 

regarding the appropriateness of using formaldehyde and carbon monoxide (CO) both in 

concentration (parts per million (ppm)) levels as surrogates for HAP for stationary RICE are still 

valid. Consequently, EPA is promulgating CO or formaldehyde standards in order to regulate 

HAP emissions. 
4-14 

In addition to reducing HAP, the emission control technologies that will be installed on 

stationary RICE to reduce HAP will also reduce CO and VOC, and for rich burn engines will 

also reduce NOx. 

4.4 Cost Impacts 

4.4.1 Introduction 

EPA has determined that oxidation catalysts for two-stroke lean burn (2SLB) and fourstroke lean burn (4SLB) engines, and non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) for four-stroke 

rich burn (4SRB) engines are applicable controls for HAP reduction from existing stationary SI 

RICE. To determine the capital and annual costs for these control technologies, equipment cost 

information was obtained from industry groups2

 and vendors and manufacturers of SI engine 

control technology. In some cases, the industry groups provided a breakdown of the capital and 

annual cost components for each of the retrofit options. Using this cost data, annualized cost and 

capital cost equations for oxidation catalysts and NSCR were developed. 

4.4.2 Control Cost Methodology 

The following sections describe the methodology used to derive the total capital and total 

annual costs for each of the control technology options. These methodologies were used to 

calculate total capital and total annual costs when only purchased equipment costs were available 

(e.g., vendor equipment costs). The methodologies were not used for cost data provided by 

industry groups because they included a breakdown of the actual total capital and total annual 

costs. A summary of the methodologies, equations, and assumptions used to estimate the total 

capital and total annual costs for some of the cost data are described in the following sections. 

4.4.2.1 Total Capital Costs 

The total capital cost includes the direct and indirect costs of purchasing and installing 

the control equipment. The direct cost includes the cost of purchasing the equipment and 

instrumentation, cost of shipping, and the cost of installing the control equipment. The indirect 

cost includes the costs for engineering, contractor fees, testing costs, and also includes costs for 

contingencies, such as additional modifications, or delays in startup. The total capital cost 

equation can be summarized as follows: 

Total Capital Cost (TCC) = Direct Costs (DC) + Indirect Costs (IC) 

 

2

 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (RICE 

NESHAP) Proposed Revisions – Emission Control Costs Analysis Background for “Above the Floor” Emission 

Controls for Natural Gas-Fired RICE, Innovative Environmental Solutions Inc., October 2009. (EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0279). 
4-15 

The direct costs include the costs of purchasing and installing the control equipment and can be 

summarized using the following equation; 

DC = Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) + Direct Installation Costs (DIC). 

A summary of the cost assumptions for PEC includes the following: 

 Control Device and Auxiliary Equipment (EC); 

 Instrumentation (10% of EC); 

 Sales Tax (3% of EC); 

 Freight (5% of EC); 

and can be summarized as: 

PEC = 118% EC. 

A summary of the cost assumptions for DIC includes the following: 

 Foundations and Supports (8% of PEC); 

 Handling and Erection (14% of PEC); 

 Electrical (4% of PEC); 

 Piping (2% of PEC); 

 Insulation for Ductwork (1% of PEC); 

 Painting (1% of PEC); 

and can be summarized as: 

DIC = 30% PEC = 0.3 PEC. 

Therefore, the direct costs can be simplified using the following equation: 

DC = PEC + 0.3 PEC = 1.3 PEC. 

The indirect costs include the costs of engineering and contractor fees and contingencies and can 

be summarized using the following equation: 

IC = Indirect Installation Costs (ICC) + Contingencies (C). 
4-16 

A summary of the cost assumptions for ICC includes the following: 

 Engineering (10% of PEC); 

 Construction and Field Expenses (5% of PEC); 

 Contractor Fees (10% of PEC); 

 Startup (2% of PEC); 

 Performance Test (1% of PEC); 

and can be summarized as: 

IIC = 28% PEC = 0.28 PEC. 

A summary of the cost assumptions for C includes the following: 

 Equipment Redesign and Modifications; 

 Cost Escalations; 

 Delays in Startup; 

and is assumed to be: 

C = 3% PEC = 0.03 PEC. 

Therefore, the IC can be summarized using the following equation: 

IC = 0.28 PEC + 0.03 PEC = 0.31 PEC, 

and the simplified TCC equation can be expressed as: 

TCC = 1.3 PEC + 0.31 PEC = 1.61 PEC = 1.61 (1.18 EC) = 1.9 EC 

4.4.2.2 Total Annual Costs 

The total annual cost includes the direct and indirect annual costs of operating and 

maintaining the control equipment. The direct annual cost includes the cost of the utilities, 

operating labor, and control device cleaning and maintenance. The indirect annual cost includes 

the overhead costs such as spare parts for the control equipment, administrative charges, and the 

capital recovery of the control technology. The total annual cost equation can be summarized as 

follows: 
4-17 

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = Direct Annual Costs (DAC) + Indirect Annual Costs (IAC). 

The DAC includes the following parameters: 

 Utilities; 

 Operating Labor; 

 Maintenance; 

 Annual Compliance Test; 

 Catalyst Cleaning; 

 Catalyst Replacement; 

 Catalyst Disposal. 

The IAC includes the following parameters: 

 Overhead; 

 Fuel Penalty; 

 Property Tax; 

 Insurance; 

 Administrative Charges; 

 Capital Recovery = {I(1+I)n/((1+I)n-1)*TCC} where I is the interest rate, and n is the 

equipment life. 

To calculate DAC, the costs were broken up into three separate costs: operation and 

maintenance materials cost, operation and maintenance labor cost, and the cost for annual 

performance testing or downtime or allowance for catalyst washing. Actual annual cost data 

from the industry groups were used to estimate the DAC for each of the control technologies. 

The IAC was broken up into three separate costs: administrative, fuel penalty, and capital 

recovery. Again, cost data from the industry groups was used to estimate these costs for each of 

the control technologies. No fuel penalty was estimated for the oxidation catalyst control 

technologies, because this control technology does not increase the fuel usage of the SI engine. 
4-18 

4.4.3 Control Cost Equations 

Control cost equations were developed for 2SLB oxidation catalyst, 4SLB oxidation 

catalyst, and a NSCR for 4SRB engines using the total capital cost and total annual cost data for 

each control technology. Control cost equations for 2SLB and 4SLB oxidation catalysts were 

developed separately because the 2SLB oxidation catalyst requires a premium catalyst to reduce 

the HAP compounds because of the low exhaust temperature of 2SLB engines. 

4.4.3.1 2SLB Oxidation Catalyst 

The 2SLB oxidation catalyst is an effective control technology that reduces HAP 

emissions from a 2SLB SI engine by oxidizing organic compounds using a catalyst. The 

oxidation catalyst unit contains a honeycomb-like structure or substrate with a large surface area 

that is coated with a premium active catalyst layer such as platinum or palladium. The oxidation 

catalyst works by oxidizing carbon monoxide (CO) and gaseous hydrocarbons (HAP) in the 

exhaust gas to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. The reduction of CO and HAP varies depending 

on the type of catalyst used and the exhaust temperature of the pollutant stream. 

The cost of retrofitting an oxidation catalyst to an existing 2SLB engine was estimated 

using cost data obtained from vendors and industry groups covering engines ranging from 58 

horsepower (HP) to 4,670 HP. An equipment life of 10 years and an interest rate of 7 percent 

were used to estimate the capital recovery of the control technology and the fuel penalty was 

assumed to be negligible. The cost equations are presented in 2009 dollars. 

The total annualized cost equation for retrofitting an oxidation catalyst on a 2SLB engine 

was estimated to be: 

2SLB Oxidation Catalyst Total Annual Cost = $11.4 x HP + $13,928 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.8046, which shows the data fits the 

equation closely. Therefore, this equation was used to estimate annualized cost for an oxidation 

catalyst on a 2SLB engine. 

The total capital cost equation for retrofitting an oxidation catalyst on a 2SLB engine was 

estimated to be: 
4-19 

2SLB Oxidation Catalyst Total Capital Cost = $47.1 x HP + $41,603 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

4.4.3.2 4SLB Oxidation Catalyst 

The 4SLB oxidation catalyst is an effective control technology that reduces HAP 

emissions from a 4SLB SI engine by oxidizing organic compounds using a catalyst. The 

oxidation catalyst unit contains a honeycomb-like structure or substrate with a large surface area 

that is coated with a premium active catalyst layer such as platinum or palladium. The oxidation 

catalyst works by oxidizing CO and gaseous hydrocarbons (HAP) in the exhaust gas to CO2 and 

water. The reductions of CO and HAP vary depending on the type of catalyst used and the 

exhaust temperature of the pollutant stream. 

The cost of retrofitting an oxidation catalyst to an existing 4SLB engine was estimated 

using cost data obtained from vendors and industry groups covering engines ranging from 400 

HP to 8,000 HP. Again, an equipment life of 10 years and an interest rate of 7 percent were used 

to estimate the capital recovery of the control technology and the fuel penalty was assumed to be 

negligible. The cost equations are presented in 2009 dollars. 

The total annualized cost equation for retrofitting an oxidation catalyst on a 4SLB engine 

was estimated to be: 

4SLB Oxidation Catalyst Total Annual Cost = $1.81 x HP + $3,442 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.9779, which shows the data fits the 

equation very closely. Therefore, this equation was used to estimate annualized cost for an 

oxidation catalyst on a 4SLB engine. 

The total capital cost equation for retrofitting an oxidation catalyst on a 4SLB SI engine was 

estimated to be: 

4SLB Oxidation Catalyst Total Capital Cost = $12.8 x HP + $3,069 
4-20 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

A summary of the cost calculations, regression analyses, and graphical representations of the 

annual and capital cost data are presented in Appendix A of the cost memo that is the basis for 

the cost data presented in this RIA.3

4.4.3.3 Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction 

The NSCR or three-way catalyst is used to control HAP emissions from 4SRB engines. 

In addition to HAP reductions, NSCR also reduces the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, 

and other hydrocarbons (HC). The reduction of HAP and CO takes place through an oxidation 

reaction that converts HAP to CO2 and water and converts CO to CO2. The conversion of NOx

takes place through a reduction of the NOx to nitrogen gas and oxygen. 

The cost of retrofitting an NSCR on an existing 4SRB engine was estimated based on 

cost data received from vendors and industry groups. A linear regression analysis was done on 

the data set and the linear equation for annualized cost was; 

NSCR Annual Cost = $4.77 x HP + $5,679 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.7987, which shows an acceptable 

representation of the cost data. Therefore, this equation was used to estimate annualized cost for 

retrofitting the NSCR control technology on 4SRB engines. 

The capital cost equation for retrofitting an air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) controller and NSCR on a 

4SRB engine was estimated to be: 

NSCR Capital Cost = $24.9 x HP + $13,118 

where 

HP = engine size in HP. 

 

3

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melanie King, EPA. OAQPS/SPPD/ESG. Impacts Associated with 

NESHAP for Existing Stationary SI RICE. June 29, 2010. 
4-21 

4.4.4 Summary 

Table 4-1 presents a summary of the annual and capital control costs as a function of 

engine size for the control technologies applicable to existing stationary SI engines, as discussed 

in this memorandum. 

Table 4-1. Summary of Annual and Capital Costs Equations for Existing Stationary SI 

Engines 

HAP Control Device Annual Cost ($2009) Capital Cost ($2009) 

2SLB Oxidation Catalyst $11.4 x HP + $13,928 $47.1 x HP + $41,603 

4SLB Oxidation Catalyst $1.81 x HP + $3,442 $12.8 x HP + $3,069 

NSCR $4.77 x HP + $5,679 $24.9 x HP + $13,118 

A summary of the annual and capital costs associated with the rule and obtained using the 

methodology described above are presented in Tables 4-2 to 4-5 below.4

 These costs are used as 

input to the economic impact as well as the small entity analysis. 

 

4

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melanie King, EPA. OAQPS/SPPD/ESG. Impacts Associated with 

NESHAP for Existing Stationary SI RICE. June 29, 2010. 
Table 4-2. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Costs for the SI RICE NESHAPa

Size Range (HP) 

Capital 

Control Cost 

Annual 

Control Cost Initial Test 

Recordkeeping Reporting Monitoring— Capital Cost 

Monitoring

—Annual 

Cost 

Total Annual 

Costs 

Total Capital 

Costs 

Major Sources 

25–50 $0 $0 $0 $4,060,795 $0 $0 $0 $4,060,795 $0 50–100 $0 $0 $0 $1,087,540 $0 $0 $0 $1,087,540 $0 100–175 $48,502,361 $37,071,061 $15,971,384 $1,721,899 $5,725,314 $0 $0 $60,489,657 $48,502,361 175–300 $13,225,919 $8,382,568 $3,442,648 $371,157 $1,234,097 $0 $0 $13,430,470 $13,225,919 300–500 $10,934,795 $5,562,872 $2,123,326 $228,919 $761,155 $0 $0 $8,676,262 $10,934,795 500–600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 600–750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 >750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total $72,663,076 $51,016,500 $21,537,358 $7,470,310 $7,720,566 $0 $0 $87,744,734 $72,663,076 Area Sources 

25–50 $0 $0 $0 $6,668,944 $0 $0 $0 $6,668,944 $0 

50–100 $0 $0 $0 $2,868,511 $0 $0 $0 $2,868,511 $0 100–175 $0 $0 $0 $3,529,711 $0 $0 $0 $3,529,711 $0 175–300 $0 $0 $0 $1,264,799 $0 $0 $0 $1,264,799 $0 300–500 $0 $0 $0 $908,913 $0 $0 $0 $908,913 $0 500–600 $7,547,433 $2,662,805 $248,366 $454,493 $1,26,426 0 0 $3,492,090 $7,547,433 600–750 $1,522,236 $505,221 $44,323 $77,882 $22,562 0 0 $649,988 $1,522,236 >750 $21,075,418 $6,214,397 $472,244 $829,795 $240,387 0 0 $7,756,823 $21,075,418 

Total $30,145,088 $9,382,423 $764,933 $16,603,048 $389,375 0 0 $27,139,780 $30,145,088 

Grand Total 

Total $102.808,163 $60,398,923 $22,302,292 $24,073,358 $8,106,972 0 0 $114,884,514 $102,808.163 

a Costs are presented in 2009 dollars. 
4-23

Table 4-3. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAPa

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 2211 Electric Power Generation $52,905,258 $63,062,494 $11,698,144 $12,138,277 $64,603,403 $75,200,772 48621 Natural Gas Transmission $1,484,494 $1,462,530 $13,718,381 $6,142,839 $15,202,876 $7,605,369 211111 Crude Petroleum & NG 

Production $4,561,236 $6,138,383 

$71,439 $951,462 

$4,632,675 $7,089,844 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Producers $4,561,236 $6,138,383 $71,439 $951,462 $4,632,675 $7,089,844 92811 National Security $5,878,362 $7,006,944 $1, 299,794 $1,348,697 $7,178,1566 $8,355,641 335312 Hydro Power Units $0 $25,248 $0 $37,872 $0 $63,120 335312 Irrigation Sets $3,025,050 $3,230,856 $3,285,990 $4,999,041 $6,310,940 $8,229,896 333992 Welders $247,440 $679,896 $0 $570,130 $247,440 $1,250,027  Total $72,663,076 $87,744,734 $30,145,088 $27,139,780 $102,808,163 $114,884,514

a Costs are presented in 2009 dollars. 
4-24

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Sizea

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Electric Power Generation (2211) 

25–50 hp $0 $2,758,459 $0 $4,137,688 $0 $6,896,147 

50–100 hp $0 $606,144 $0 $909,215 $0 $1,515,359 

100–175 hp $33,868,173 $42,238,648 $0 $1,803,548 $33,868,173 $44,042,196 

175–300 hp $10,603,849 $10,767,847 $0 $446,361 $10,603,849 $11,214,209 

300–500 hp $8,433,236 $6,691,397 $0 $264,820 $8,433,236 $6,956,217 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $2,543,944 $1,177,047 $2,543,944 $1,177,047 600–750 hp $0 $0 $515,514 $220,122 $515,514 $220,122 >750 hp $0 $0 $8,638,687 $3,179,475 $8,638,687 $3,179,475 Total Electric Power Generation 2211 $52,905,258 $63,062,494 $11,698,144 $12,138,277 $64,603,403 $75,200,772 

Natural Gas Transmission (48621) 

25–50 hp $0 $102 $0 $1,934 $0 $2,036 50–100 hp $0 $4,872 $0 $92,571 $0 $97,443 100–175 hp $301,721 $376,291 $0 $203,518 $301,721 $579,809 

175–300 hp $643,157 $653,104 $0 $342,928 $643,157 $996,032 

300–500 hp $539,617 $428,162 $0 $214,637 $539,617 $642,799 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $1,925,560 $890,929 $1,925,560 $890,929 600–750 hp $0 $0 $949,443 $405,408 $949,443 $405,408 >750 hp $0 $0 $10,843,377 $3,990,913 $10,843,377 $3,990,913 Total Natural Gas Transmission (48621) $1,484,494 $1,462,530 $13,781,381 $6,142,839 $15,202,876 $7,605,369 

Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111) 

25–50 hp $0 $388,115 $0 $582,173 $0 $970,288 

50–100 hp $0 $66,698 $0 $100,047 $0 $166,744 

100–175 hp $4,549,775 $5,674,246 $0 $242,285 $4,549,775 $5,916,531 

(continued) 
4-25

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Sizea (continued) 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

175–300 hp $1,037 $1,053 $0 $44 $1,037 $1,096 300–500 hp $10,424 $8,271 $0 $327 $10,424 $8,598 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $3,102 $1,435 $3.102 $1,435 600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $68,337 $25,151 $68,337 $25,151 Total Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111) $4,561,236 $6,138,383 $71,439 $951,462 $4,632,675 $7,089,844 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) 

25–50 hp $0 $388,115 $0 $582,173 $0 $970,288 

50–100 hp $0 $66,698 $0 $100,047 $0 $166,744 

100–175 hp $4,549,775 $5,674,246 $0 $242,285 $4,549,775 $5,916,531 

175–300 hp $1,037 $1,053 $0 $44 $1,037 $1,096 

300–500 hp $10,424 $8,271 $0 $327 $10,424 $8,598 500–600 hp $0 $0 $3,102 $1,435 $3,102 $1,435 600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $68,337 $25,151 $68,337 $25,151 Total Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) $4,561,236 $6,138,383 $71,439 $951,462 $4,632,675 $7,089,844 

National Security (92811) 

25–50 hp $0 $306,495 $0 $459,743 $0 $766,239 

50–100 hp $0 $67,349 $0 $101,024 $0 $168,373 

100–175 hp $3,763,130 $4,693,183 $0 $200,394 $3,763,130 $4,893,577 

175–300 hp $1,178,205 $1,196,427 $0 $49,596 $1,178,205 $1,246,023 

300–500 hp $937,026 $743,489 $0 $29,424 $937,026 $772,913 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $282,660 $130,783 $282,660 $130,783 

(continued) 
4-26

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Sizea (continued) 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

600–750 hp $0 $0 $57,279 $24,458 $57,279 $24,458 >750 hp $0 $0 $959,854 $353,275 $959,854 $353,275 Total National Security (92811) $5,878,362 $7,006,944 $1,299,794, $1,348,697 $7,178,156 $8,355,641 

Hydro Power Units (335312) 

25–50 hp $0 $22,688 $0 $34,032 $0 $56,721 

50–100 hp $0 $2,560 $0 $3,840 $0 $6,399 

100–175 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

175–300 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

300–500 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total Hydro Power Units (335312) $0 $25,248 $0 $37,872 $0 $63,120 

Irrigation Sets (335312) 

25–50 hp $0 $32,913 $0 $625,338 $0 $658,251 

50–100 hp $0 $65,825 $0 $1,250,677 $0 $1,316,502 

100–175 hp $1,222,348 $1,524,449 $0 $824,505 $1,222,348 $2,348,954 

175–300 hp $798,634 $810,986 $0 $425,827 $798,634 $1,236,813 

300–500 hp $1,004,068 $796,683 $0 $399,376 $1,004,068 $1,196,060 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $2,789,064 $1,290,460 $2,789,064 $1,290,460 600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $496,827 $182,857 $496,827 $182,857 Total Irrigation Sets (335312) $3,025,050 $3,230,856 $3,285,890 $4,999,041 $6,310,940 $8,229,896 

(continued) 
4-27

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Sizea (continued) 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Welders (333992) 

25–50 hp $0 $163,908 $0 $245,862 $0 $409,771 

50–100 hp $0 $207,394 $0 $311,091 $0 $518,485 

100–175 hp $247,440 $308,594 $0 $13,177 $247,440 $321,771 

175–300 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

300–500 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

500–600 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total Welders (333992) $247,440 $679,896 $0 $570,130 $247,440 $1,250,027 

Total $72,663,076 $87,744,734 $30,145,088 $27,139,780 $102,808,163 $114,884,514 

a Costs are presented in 2009 dollars. 
4-28

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Number of Enginesa

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost Electric Power Generation (2211) 

25–50 hp 37,933 56,900 94,833 $0 $6,896,147 50–100 hp 8,336 12,503 20,839 $0 $1,515,359 100–175 hp 16,534 24,802 41,336 $33,868,173 $44,042,196 

175–300 hp 4,092 6,138 10,230 $10,603,849 $11,214,209 300–500 hp 2,428 3,642 6,070 $8,433,236 $6,956,217 

500–600 hp 0 2,107 2,107 $2,543,944 $1,177,047 

600–750 hp 0 363 363 $515,944 $220,122 >750 hp 0 4,677 4,677 $8,638,687 $3,179,475 Total Electric Power Generation (2211) 69,323 111,132 180,455 $64,603,403 $75,200,772 

Natural Gas Transmission (48621) 

25–50 hp 1 27 28 $0 $2,036 50–100 hp 67 1,273 1,340 $0 $97,443 

100–175 hp 147 2,799 2,946 $301,721 $579,809 

175–300 hp 248 4,716 4,964 $643,157 $996,032 

300–500 hp 155 2,952 3,107 $539,617 $642,799 

500–600 hp 0 1,595 1,595 $1,925,560 $890,929 600–750 hp 0 668 668 $949,443 $405,408 >750 hp 0 5,871 5,871 $10,843,377 $3,990,913 Total Natural Gas Transmission (48621) 619 19,899 20,519 $15,202,876 $7,605,369 

Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111) 

25–50 hp 5,337 8,006 13,343 $0 $970,288 

50–100 hp 917 1,376 2,293 $0 $166,744 100–175 hp 2,221 3,332 5,553 $4,549,775 $5,916,531 

(continued) 
4-29

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Number of Enginesa

(continued) 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost 

175–300 hp 0 1 1 $1,037 $1,096 300–500 hp 3 5 8 $10,424 $8,598 500–600 hp 0 3 3 $3,102 $1,435 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 37 37 $68,337 $25,151 

Total Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111) 8,479 12,758 21,237 $4,632,675 $7,089,844 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) 

25–50 hp 5,337 8,006 13,343 $0 $970,288 

50–100 hp 917 1,376 2,293 $0 $166,744 100–175 hp 2,221 3,332 5,553 $4,549,775 $5,916,531 

175–300 hp 0 1 1 $1,037 $1,096 

300–500 hp 3 5 8 $10,424 $8,598 500–600 hp 0 3 3 $3,102 $1,435 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 37 37 $68,337 $25,151 

Total Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) 8,479 12,758 21,237 $4,632,675 $7,089,844 

National Security (92811) 

25–50 hp 4,215 6,322 10,537 $0 $766,239 

50–100 hp 926 1,389 2,315 $0 $168,373 100–175 hp 1,837 2,756 4,593 $3,763,130 $4,893,577 

175–300 hp 455 682 1,137 $1,178,205 $1,246,023 300–500 hp 270 404 674 $937,026 $772,913 

500–600 hp 0 234 234 $282,660 $130,783 

(continued) 
4-30

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Number of Enginesa

(continued) 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost 

600–750 hp 0 40 40 $57,279 $24,458 >750 hp 0 520 520 $959.854 $353,275 Total Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) 7,702 12,347 20,050 $7,178,156 $8,355,641 

Hydro Power Units (335312) 

25–50 hp 312 468 780 $0 $56,721 50–100 hp 35 53 88 $0 $6,399 

100–175 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 

175–300 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 

300–500 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 500–600 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 Total Hydro Power Units (335312) 347 521 868 $0 $63,120 

Irrigation Sets (335312) 

25–50 hp 453 8,599 9,052 $0 $658,251 50–100 hp 905 17,199 18,104 $0 $1,316,502 100–175 hp 597 11,338 11,935 $1,222,348 $2,348,954 175–300 hp 308 5,856 6,164 $798,634 $1,236,813 

300–500 hp 289 5,492 5,781 $1,004,068 $1,196,060 

500–600 hp 0 2,310 2,310 $2,789,064 $1,290,460 

600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 269 269 $496,827 $182857 Total Irrigation Sets (335312) 2,552 51,063 53,615 $6,310,940 $8,229,896 

(continued) 
4-31

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the SI RICE NESHAP, by Number of Enginesa

(continued) 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

NAICS Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost Welders (333992) 

25–50 hp 2,254 3,381 5,635 $0 $409,771 50–100 hp 2,852 4,278 7,130 $0 $518,485 

100–175 hp 121 181 302 $247,440 $321,771 

175–300 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 300–500 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 500–600 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 Total Welders (333992) 5,227 7,840 13,067 $247,440 $1,250,027 

Total 102,729 228,319 331,047 $382,802,298 $253,374,939 

1 Costs are presented in 2009 dollars. 
4.4.5 Caveats and Uncertainties in the Cost Estimates 

* Current knowledge about NOx control techniques and costs is applied in this 

study. Advances such as alternative catalyst formulations may occur between 

now and when sources comply with this rulemaking that may lower costs. Scale 

economies can also lower per unit production costs as the market for these NOx 

control techniques expands. 

* The alternative control techniques and corresponding emission reductions and 

costs may not apply to every unit within the source category. Many factors 

influence the performance and cost of any control technique. Because control 

technology references typically evaluate average retrofit situations, costs may 

be underestimated for the fraction of the source population with difficult to 

retrofit conditions. Difficult to retrofit conditions may be less of an issue for 

RICEs than for other point sources, however. 

* NOx control efficiency and cost estimates associated with source category-control 

strategy combinations are represented as point estimates. In practice, control 

effectiveness and costs will vary by engine.
4-33 

4.5 Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions 

The baseline emissions, emissions factors and emissions reductions associated with the 

proposed reconsideration rule are provided in the tables below. Emissions are in tons per year. 

Table 4-6. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Emissions for the SI 

RICE NESHAP in 2013 

Baseline Emissions (TPY) 

Size Range (HP) HAP CO NOx VOC 

Major Sources 

25–50 hp 1,107 28,557 41,751 5,696 

50–100 hp 593 15,296 22,363 3,051 

100–175 hp 1,721 44,399 64,913 8,855 

175–300 hp 641 16,530 24,168 3,297 

300–500 hp 666 17,171 25,105 3,425 

500–600 hp 0 0 0 0 

600–750 hp 0 0 0 0 

>750 hp 0 0 0 0 

Total 4,728 121,953 178,301 24,323 

Area Sources 

25–50 hp 1,818 46,898 68,566 9,354 

50–100 hp 1,564 40,344 58,985 8,047 

100–175 hp 3,529 91,013 133,065 18,153 

175–300 hp 2,184 56,331 82,359 11,235 

300–500 hp 2,643 68,178 99,679 13,598 

500–600 hp 1,830 47,273 69,094 9,415 

600–750 hp 383 9,876 14,438 1,969 

>750 hp 6,041 155,890 227,890 31,076 

Total 19,993 515,803 754,077 102,846 

Major + Area 

Total 

24,722 637,756 932,377 127,169 

Table 4-7. Emissions Factors 

Engine 

HAP 

(lb/hp-hr) 

CO 

(lb/hp-hr) 

NOx 

(lb/hp-hr) 

VOC 

(lb/hp-hr) 

Formaldehyde 

(lb/hp-hr) 

2SLB 5.9610-4 1.0610-2 4.1810-2 3.0710-3 4.2910-4

4SLB 5.4110-4 3.9210-3 1.1510-2 2.7810-3 3.9610-4

4SRB 2.4310-4 1.9310-2 1.4710-2 1.2510-3 1.7510-4

Comment [A4]: Please define baseline. 
4-34 

Table 4-8. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Emissions Reductions for the SI 

RICE NESHAP in 2013 

Emission Reductions (TPY) 

Size Range (HP) HAP CO NOx VOC 

Major Sources 

25–50 hp 0 0 0 0 

50–100 hp 0 0 0 0 

100–175 hp 744 7,124 0 3,826 

175–300 hp 277 2,653 0 1,424 

300–500 hp 288 2,755 0 1,480 

500–600 hp N/A N/A N/A 0 

600–750 hp N/A N/A N/A 0 

>750 hp N/A N/A N/A 0 

Total 1,308 12,532 0 6,730 

Area Sources 

25–50 hp 0 0 0 0 

50–100 hp 0 0 0 0 

100–175 hp 0 0 0 0 

175–300 hp 0 0 0 0 

300–500 hp 0 0 0 0 

500–600 hp 101 2,070 2,,063 517 

600–750 hp 22 453 452 113 

>750 hp 347 7,156 7,133 1,787 

Total 470 9,679 9,648 2,418 

Major + Area Total 1,778 22,211 9,648 9,147 
5-1 

Section 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, ENERGY IMPACTS, AND SOCIAL COSTS 

The EIA provides decision makers with social cost estimates and enhances understanding 

of how the costs may be distributed across stakeholders (EPA, 2010). Although several 

economic frameworks can be used to estimate social costs for regulations of this size and sector 

scope, OAQPS has typically used partial equilibrium market models. However, the current data 

do not provide sufficient details to develop a market model; the data that are available have little 

or no sector/firm detail and are reported at the national level. In addition, some sectors have 

unique market characteristics that make developing partial equilibrium models difficult. Given 

these constraints, we used the direct compliance costs as a measure of total social costs. In 

addition, we also provide a qualitative analysis of the proposed reconsidered rule’s impact on 

stakeholder decisions, a qualitative discussion on if unfunded mandates occur as a result of this 

proposed reconsidered rule, and the potential distribution of social costs between consumers and 

producers. 

5.1 Compliance Costs of the Proposed Reconsidered Rule 

 EPA’s engineering cost analysis estimates the total annualized costs of the proposed 

reconsidered rule are $115 million (in 2010 dollars) (EC/R, 2012). 

The majority of the costs are incurred by the electric power sector (65%). The remaining 

industries each account for less than 8% of the total annualized cost. The industrial classification 

for each engine is taken from the Power Systems Research (PSR) database, which is the major 

source of data for the engines affected by this rule. The PSR database used as a basis for the 

analyses in this RIA contains information on both mobile and stationary engines, among other 

data, and does so not only for the U.S. but worldwide. PSR has collected such data for more 

than 30 years. The Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) uses this database 

frequently in the development of their mobile source rules. 

The annualized compliance costs per engine vary by the engine size. For 500 hp engines 

or less, the annualized per-engine costs are below $371 per engine. Per-engine annualized 

compliance costs for higher horsepower (hp) engines range up to $2,800. 

The proposed reconsidered rule will affect approximately 331,000 existing stationary SI 

engines. As shown in Figure 5-1, most of the affected engines fall within the 25 to 50 hp 

category (45%). The next highest categories are 100 to 175 hp (22%) and 50 to 100 hp (16%). 
5-2 

Figure 5-1. Distribution of Engine Population by Horsepower Group 

To assess the size of the compliance relative to the value of the goods and services for 

industries using affected engines, we collected Census data for selected industries. At the 

industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of revenue (less than 1%), for 

all affected industries. Results for affected industries can be found in Table 5-1. These industry 

level cost-to-sales ratios can be interpreted as an average impact on potentially affected firms in 

these industries. Based on the cost-to-sales ratios, we can conclude that the annualized cost of 

this rule should be no higher than 1% of the sales on average for a firm in each of these 

industries, excluding natural gas transmission and natural gas liquid producers, which face 

slightly higher costs to sales ratios. 

45%

16%

22%

7% 5%

2% 0%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

25-50 hp 50-100 hp 100-175 hp 175-300 hp 300-500 hp 500-600 hp 600-750 hp >750 hp
5-3 

5.2 Social Cost Estimate 

As shown in Table 5-1, the compliance costs are only a small fraction of the affected 

product value; this suggests that shift of the supply curve may also be small and result in small 

changes in market prices and consumption. EPA believes the national annualized compliance 

cost estimates provide a reasonable approximation of the social cost of this proposed 

reconsidered rule. EPA believes this approximation is better for industries whose markets are 

well characterized as perfectly competitive. This approximation is less well understood for 

industries where the characterization of markets is not always perfectly competitive such as 

electric power generation whose legal incidence of this rule is approximately 65 percent of the 

annualized compliance cost. However, given the data limitation noted earlier, EPA believes the 

accounting for compliance cost is a reasonable approximation to inform policy discussion in this 

rulemaking. To shed more light on this issue, EPA ran hypothetical analyses and the results are 

in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 later in this RIA. 

5.3 How Might People and Firms Respond? A Partial Equilibrium Analysis 

Markets are composed of people as consumers and producers trying to do the best they 

can given their economic circumstances. One way economists illustrate behavioral responses to 

pollution control costs is by using market supply and demand diagrams. The market supply curve 

describes how much of a good or service firms are willing and able to sell to people at a 

Table 5-1. Selected Industry-Level Annualized Compliance Costs as a Fraction of Total 

Industry Revenue: 2009 

 

Total 

Annualized 

Costs 

Sales, Shipments, Receipt, 

or Revenue ($Billion) 

Industry 

(NAICS) Industry Name ($ million)a

 ($2007) ($2009) 

Cost-toSales Ratio 

2211 Electric Power Generation $128.4 $440.4 $453.7 0.004% 

48621 Natural Gas Transmission $68.9 $16.4 $16.9 0.41% 

211111 Crude Petroleum & NG Production $7.4 $214.2 $220.5 0.001% 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Producers $7.4 $42.4 $43.6 0.005% 

92811 National Security $14.3 #N/A #N/A #N/A 

333992 Welders $1.3 $5.2 $5.5 0.025% 

111 and 112 Agriculture using irrigation systemsa $25.7 $27.9 $28.8 0.09% 

Field Code Changed
5-4 

a Irrigation engine costs assumed to be passed on to agricultural sectors that use irrigation systems. 

N/A: receipts are Not Available for National Security 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 00: All sectors: 

Geographic Area Series: Economy-Wide Key Statistics: 2007” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (July 7th , 

2010). 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2009. “2008 

Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. 

 Costs from Existing SI RICE NESHAP Impacts received from EPA 1/26/12 

particular price; we often draw this curve as upward sloping because some production resources 

are fixed. As a result, the cost of producing an additional unit typically rises as more units are 

made. The market demand curve describes how much of a good or service consumers are willing 

and able to buy at some price. Holding other factors constant, the quantity demand is assumed to 

fall when prices rise. In a perfectly competitive market, equilibrium price (P0) and quantity (Q0) 

is determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves (see Figure 5-4). 

5.3.1 Changes in Market Prices and Quantities 

To qualitatively assess how the regulation may influence the equilibrium price and 

quantity in the affected markets, we assumed the market supply function shifts up by the 

additional cost of producing the good or service; the unit cost increase is typically calculated by 

dividing the annual compliance cost estimate by the baseline quantity (Q0) (see Figure 5-4). As 

shown, this model makes two predictions: the price of the affected goods and services are likely 

to rise and the consumption/production levels are likely to fall. 
5-5 

consumer surplus = –[fghd + dhc] 

producer surplus = [fghd – aehb] – bdc 

total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus = 

–[aehb + dhc + bdc] 

Figure 5-2. Market Demand and Supply Model: With and Without Regulation 

The size of these changes depends on two factors: the size of the unit cost increase 

(supply shift) and differences in how each side of the market (supply and demand) responds to 

changes in price. Economists measure responses using the concept of price elasticity, which 

represents the percentage change in quantity divided by the percentage change in price. This 

dependence has been expressed in the following formula:5

  Demand) of Elasticity Price -Supply of Elasticity Price

Supply of Elasticity Price Share of p uniter- cost 

As a general rule, a higher share of the per-unit cost increases will be passed on to 

consumers in markets where 

 goods and services are necessities and people do not have good substitutes that they 

can switch to easily (demand is inelastic) and 

 

5

For examples of similar mathematical models in the public finance literature, see Nicholson (1998), pages 444–447, 

or Fullerton and Metcalf (2002). 
5-6 

 suppliers have excess capacity and can easily adjust production levels at minimal 

costs, or the time period of analysis is long enough that suppliers can change their 

fixed resources; supply is more elastic over longer periods. 

Short-run demand elasticities for energy goods (electricity and natural gas), agricultural 

products, and construction are often inelastic. Specific estimates of short-run demand elasticities 

for these products can be obtained from existing literature. For the short-run demand of energy 

products, the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) buildings module uses values between 

0.1 and 0.3; a 1% increase in price leads to a 0.1 to 0.3% decrease in energy demand (Wade, 

2003). For the short-run demand of agriculture and construction, the EPA has estimated 

elasticities to be 0.2 for agriculture and approximately 1 for construction (U.S. EPA, 2004). As a 

result, a 1% increase in the prices of agriculture products would lead to a 0.2% decrease in 

demand for those products, while a 1% increase in construction prices would lead to 

approximately a 1% decrease in demand for construction. Given these demand elasticity 

scenarios (shaded in gray), approximately a 1% increase unit costs would result in a price 

increase of 0.1 to 1% (Table 5-2). As a result, 10 to 100% of the unit cost increase could be 

passed on to consumers in the form of higher goods/services prices. This price increase would 

correspond to a 0.1 to 0.8% decline in consumption in these markets (Table 5-3). 

Table 5-2. Hypothetical Price Increases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs 

Market Demand 

Elasticity 

Market Supply Elasticity 

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 3 

−0.1 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 

−0.3 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 

−0.5 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 

−0.7 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 

−1.0 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 

−1.5 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 

−3.0 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 

53.2 Regulated Markets: The Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

Sector 

Given that the electric power sector bears majority of the estimated compliance costs and 

the industry is also among the last major regulated energy industries in the United States (EIA, 

2010), the competitive model is not necessarily applicable for this industry. 
5-7 

Table 5-3. Hypothetical Consumption Decreases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs 

Market Demand 

Elasticity 

Market Supply Elasticity 

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 3 

−0.1 −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% 

−0.3 −0.1% −0.2% −0.2% −0.2% −0.2% −0.3% −0.3% 

−0.5 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.3% −0.3% −0.4% −0.4% 

−0.7 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.4% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% 

−1.0 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% −0.8% 

−1.5 −0.1% −0.3% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% −0.8% −1.0% 

−3.0 −0.1% −0.3% −0.4% −0.6% −0.8% −1.0% −1.5% 

Although the electricity industry continues to go through a process of restructuring, whereby the 

industry is moving toward a more competitive framework (see Figure 5-3 for the status of 

restructuring by state),6

 in many states, electricity prices continue to be fully regulated by Public 

Service Commissions. As a result, the rules and processes outlined by these agencies would 

ultimately determine how these additional regulatory costs would be recovered by affected 

entities. 

5.3.3 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer 

Surplus 

In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in 

consumer and producer surplus, and these values can be determined using the market supply and 

demand model (Figure 5-2). The change in consumer surplus is measured as follows: 

CS = – [Q1 × p] + [0.5 × Q × p]. (5.1) 

Higher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses. Similarly, the change 

in producer surplus is measured as follows: 

PS = [Q1 × p] – [Q1 × t] – [0.5 × Q × (p – t)]. (5.2) 

Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus because the net 

price change (p – t) is negative. However, these losses are mitigated because market prices tend 

to rise. 

 

6

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/print_pages/electricity.pdf. 
5-8 

Figure 5-3. Electricity Restructuring by State 

Source. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010b. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/restructuring/restructure_elect.html>. Last updated September 

2010. 

5.4 Energy Impacts 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that agencies will prepare 

and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as 

“significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy 

actions” as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: 

(1) (i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, 

and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; 
5-9 

or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

as a significant energy action. 

This rule is not a significant energy action as designated by the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA has prepared an analysis of energy 

impacts that explains this conclusion as follows below. 

With respect to energy supply and prices, the analysis in Table 5-4 suggests at the 

industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of revenue (all industries are 

impacted under 1%). As a result, we can conclude supply and price impacts should be small. 

To enhance understanding regarding the regulation’s influence on energy consumption, 

we examined publicly available data describing energy consumption for the electric power sector 

that will be affected by this rule. The Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (EIA, 2011) provides energy 

consumption data. As shown in Table 5-4, this industry account for less than 0.3% of the U.S. 

total liquid fuels and less than 8.0% of natural gas. As a result, any energy consumption changes 

attributable to the regulatory program should not significantly influence the supply, distribution, 

or use of energy.

Table 5-4. U.S. Electric Powera

 Sector Energy Consumption (Quadrillion BTUs): 2013 

Quantity Share of Total Energy Use 

Distillate fuel oil 0.09 0.1% 

Residual fuel oil 0.22 0.2% 

Liquid fuels subtotal 0.31 0.3% 

Natural gas 7.63 7.9% 

Steam coal 17.37 18.0% 

Nuclear power 8.50 8.8% 

Renewable energyb

 4.63 4.8% 

Electricity Imports 0.12 0.1% 

Total Electric Power Energy Consumptionc

 38.77 40.1% 

Delivered Energy Use 70.56 73.2% 

Total Energy Use 96.66 100.0% 

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. 
5-10 

c

Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above. 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011a. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2011. 

Table 2. Available at: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html>. 

5.5 Unfunded Mandates 

The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, 

future compliance costs imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our 

estimates of the future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in Section 

4 of this RIA. 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. 

5.5.1 Future and Disproportionate Costs 

The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, 

future compliance costs imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our 

estimates of the future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in Chapter 

4 of this RIA. 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. 

5.5.2 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 earlier in this RIA chapter. This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the 

proposed rule on most of the categories mentioned above, and these estimates are presented 

earlier in this RIA chapter. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, today’s rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. 

5.6 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 
5-11 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome 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 rule is a nationwide standard that 

reduces air toxics emissions from existing stationary SI engines, thus decreasing the amount of 

such emissions to which all affected populations are exposed. 

5.7 Employment Impact Analysis 

In addition to addressing the costs and benefits of the proposed reconsideration rule, EPA 

has analyzed the impacts of this rulemaking on employment, which are presented in this section. 

While a standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard cost-benefit 

analysis, such an analysis is of particular concern in the current economic climate of sustained 

high unemployment. Executive Order 13563, states, “Our regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation” (emphasis added). Therefore, and consistent with recent 

efforts to characterize the employment effects of economically significant rules, the Agency has 

provided this analysis to inform the discussion of labor demand and employment impacts. 

This analysis includes estimates of certain short-term and on-going labor requirements 

(increase in labor demand) associated with reporting and recordkeeping, and the installation, 

operating and maintenance of control devices. EPA estimates that about 200 jobs will be 

created or supported in the short-term and about 400 jobs will be created or supported annually 

on a permanent basis. EPA also provides a qualitative discussion of other potential employment 

effects, including both increases and decreases. Because of the uncertainties involved, these sets 

of estimates should not be added in an attempt to characterize the overall employment effect.

We have not quantified the rule’s effects on all labor in other sectors not regulated by the 

proposed rule, or the effects induced by changes in workers’ incomes. What follows is an 

overview of the various ways that environmental regulation can affect employment, followed by 

a discussion of the estimated impacts of this rule. EPA continues to explore the relevant 

Comment [A5]: This statement does not 

appear to be true since the rule relaxes 

standards for RICE in sparsely populated 

areas. 
5-12 

theoretical and empirical literature and to seek public comments in order to ensure that such 

estimates are as accurate, useful and informative as possible. 

From an economic perspective, labor is an input into producing goods and services; if 

regulation requires that more labor be used to produce a given amount of output, that additional 

labor is reflected in an increase in the cost of production.7

 When an increase in employment 

occurs as a result of a regulation, it is a cost to firms. Moreover, when the economy is at full 

employment, we would not expect an environmental regulation to have an impact on overall 

employment because labor is being shifted from one sector to another. On the other hand, in 

periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may result in a 

short-term net increase in overall employment due to the potential hiring of previously 

unemployed workers by the regulated sector to help meet new requirements (e.g., to install new 

equipment) or by the environmental protection sector to produce new abatement capital. When 

significant numbers of workers are unemployed, the opportunity costs associated with displacing 

jobs in other sectors are likely to be smaller. To provide a partial picture of the employment 

consequences of this rule, EPA takes two approaches. First, EPA uses information such as 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting estimates derived from its cost analysis documentation 

to generate estimates of employment impacts. Second, the analysis considers the results of 

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) in estimating the effects of the regulation on the regulated 

industry. This approach has been used by EPA previously in recent Regulatory Impact Analyses. 

EPA is interested in public comments on the merits of including information derived in this 

fashion for assessing the employment consequences of regulations. 

 5.7.1 Employment Impacts from Pollution Control Requirements 

Regulations set in motion new orders for pollution control equipment and services. New 

categories of employment have been created in the process of implementing regulations. When a 

new regulation is promulgated, one typical response of industry is to order pollution control 

equipment and services in order to comply with the regulation when it becomes effective, while 

closure of plants that choose not to comply occurs after the compliance date. With such a 

response by industry as a basis, this section presents estimates for short term employment needed 

associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for this proposed rule. 

Environmental regulation may increase revenue and employment in the environmental 

 

7

 It should be noted that if more labor must be used to produce a given amount of output, then this implies a decrease 

in labor productivity. A decrease in labor productivity will cause a short-run aggregate supply curve to shift to 

the left, and businesses will produce less, all other things being equal. 

Deleted: And, in general, if a regulation 

imposes high costs and does not increase 

the demand for labor, it may lead to a 

decrease in employment.

Comment [A6]: Realize that this 

language has been used in other rules, but 

it does not seem to be correct. It 

contradicts the highlighted statement 

above. Moreover, in equilibrium, a 

decrease in the demand for labor would 

lead to a decrease in real wages, not an 

increase in involuntary unemployment. 

The reduced wages may lead to reduced 

voluntary employment as people opt for 

more leisure, but this effect is not what is 

generally understood to be 

unemployment. Also, reduced real wages 

may operate in the other direction, with 

increased labor participation as people try 

to maintain a standard of living. 

Deleted: ¶
5-13 

technology industry. While these increases represent gains for that industry, they are costs to the 

regulated industries required to install the equipment. As with any pool of labor, the gross size of 

the labor pool does not reflect the net impact on overall employment after adjusting for shifts in 

other sectors. 

Regulated firms hire workers to design and build pollution controls. Once the equipment 

is installed, regulated firms hire workers to operate and maintain the pollution control equipment 

– much like they hire workers to produce more output. Of course, these firms may also reassign 

existing employees to do these activities. Environmental regulations also support employment in 

many basic industries. In addition to the increase in employment in the pollution control 

industry (to fill increased orders for pollution control equipment placed by the regulated sector), 

environmental regulations also support employment in industries that provide intermediate goods 

to the pollution control industry. For example, an investment in capital expenditures to reduce 

air pollution involves the purchase of abatement equipment. The equipment manufacturers, in 

turn, order steel, tanks, vessels, blowers, pumps, and chemicals to manufacture and install the 

equipment. A study by Bezdek, Wendling, and DiPernab (2008) found that “investments in 

environmental protection create jobs and displace jobs, but the net effect on employment is 

positive.”8 The majority of the jobs associated with added pollution controls (e.g., boilermakers, 

general construction workers, etc.) will provide domestic employment opportunities, but some 

goods and services demanded and/or provided to the pollution control industry (e.g., steel, 

cement, etc.) are internationally traded goods.

Once the equipment is installed, regulated firms hire workers to operate and maintain the 

pollution control equipment – much like they hire workers to produce more output. Morgenstern 

et al. (2002) examined how regulated industries respond to regulation. The authors found that, 

on average for the industries they studied, employment increases in regulated firms. Of course, 

these firms may also reassign existing employees to perform these activities. 

The focus of this part of the analysis is on labor requirements related to the compliance 

actions of the affected entities within the affected sector. We do not estimate any potential 

changes in labor outside of the affected sector. It is important to highlight that unlike the typical 

case where to reduce a bad output (i.e., emissions) a firm often has to reduce production of the 

good output, many of the emission controls required by the proposed rule will simultaneously 

increase production of the good output and reduce production of bad outputs. That is, these 

 

8

 Environmental protection, the economy, and jobs: National and regional analyses, Roger H. Bezdek, Robert M. 

Wendling and Paula DiPerna, Journal of Environmental Management Volume 86, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 

63-79. 

Comment [A7]: This study is very 

limited in scope. Suggest including 

language “A study of the XYZ sector in 

ABC State in 19XX by Bezdek..” 

Otherwise it suggests that the results are 

more representative than they are. 
5-14 

controls jointly produce environmental improvements and increase output in the regulated sector. 

New labor associated with implementing these controls to comply with the new regulations can 

also be viewed as additional labor increasing output while reducing undesirable emissions. 

The employment analysis uses a bottom-up engineering-based methodology to estimate 

employment impacts. The engineering cost analysis summarized in Section 4 of this RIA 

includes estimates of the labor requirements associated with implementing the proposed 

regulations. Each of these labor changes may either be required as part of an initial effort to 

comply with the new regulation or required as a continuous or annual effort to maintain 

compliance. We estimate up-front and continual, annual labor requirements by estimating hours 

of labor required and converting this number to full-time equivalents (FTEs) by dividing by 

2,080 (40 hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks). We note that this type of FTE estimate 

cannot be used to make assumptions about the specific number of people involved or whether 

new jobs are created for new employees. 

The results of this employment estimate are presented in Table 5-5 for the proposed 

NESHAP. The tables breaks down the installation, operation, and maintenance estimates by type 

of pollution control evaluated in the RIA and present both the estimated hours required and the 

conversion of this estimate to FTE. For the proposed NESHAP, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements were estimated requirements were estimated for the entire rule rather than by 

anticipated control requirements; the reporting and recordkeeping estimates are consistent with 

estimates EPA submitted as part of its Information Collection Request (ICR) that is in the 

Supporting Statement for the proposed reconsideration rule. 

The up-front labor requirement is estimated at 182 FTEs for the proposed NESHAP. 

These up-front FTE labor requirements can be viewed as short-term labor requirements required 

for affected entities to comply with the new regulation. Ongoing requirements are estimated at 

about 357 FTEs for the proposed NESHAP. These ongoing FTE labor requirements can be 

viewed as sustained labor requirements required for affected entities to continuously comply 

with the new regulation. All of this data is found in the cost memorandum for this proposed 

reconsidered rule, and can be found in the docket for the rulemaking. It is important to recognize 

that these seemingly precise estimates are not to be assumed to be exact measures of the 

employment impacts of this rulemaking. They represent a rough approximation of the small 

positive impacts that this rule may have on employment. 

Comment [A8]: Please elaborate on 

how this is so. 
5-15 

Table 5-5. Labor-based Employment Estimates for Reporting and Recordkeeping and 

Installing, Operating, and Maintaining Control Equipment Requirements for Proposed 

Reconsideration SI RICE NESHAP 

Source Emission Control 

Measure 

Projected 

No. of 

Affected 

Units 

Per-Unit 

One-Time 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Total OneTime Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Per-Unit 

Annual 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Total Annual 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

One-Time 

Full-Time 

Equivalent 

Annual 

FullTime 

Equival

ent 

Major Sources 

SI RICE <100 HP 

N/A 70,798 N/A N/A 1 70,798 N/A 34 -O&M/Recordkeeping 

2SLB RICE 100-500 HP 

N/A 7,398 N/A N/A 

N/A 

92,480 N/A 34 

-O&M/Recordkeeping 1 

-Testing 8 

-Reporting 3.5 

Emergency 4SRB SI RICE 

100-500 HP N/A 1,597 N/A N/A 1 1,597 N/A 0.77 

Non-Emergency 4SRB SI RICE 

100-500 HP 

N/A 12,740 N/A N/A 

N/A 

146,515 N/A 70 -Testing 8 

-Reporting 3.5 

4SLB SI RICE 100-500 HP 

Oxidation Catalyst 14,257 21 300,255 

15 

163,956 144 34 -Testing 8 

-Reporting 3.5 

 

Area Sources 

All SI RICE 

N/A 228,318 N/A N/A 1 228,318 N/A 110 -O&M/Recordkeeping 

Non-Emergency 4SLB SI RICE 

>500 HP in Populated Areas 

Oxidation Catalyst 768 37 28,117 

15 

15,734 14 7.56 -Testing 2 

-Reporting 3.5 

Non-Emergency 4SRB SI RICE 

>500 HP in Populated Areas 

NSCR 578 86 49,918 

33 

22,236 24 10.69 -Testing 2 

-Reporting 3.5 

Total 144 378,290 113 741,633 182 357 

Note: Full-time equivalents (FTE) are estimated by first multiplying the projected number of affected units by the 

per unit labor requirements and then dividing by 2,080 (40 hours multiplied by 52 weeks). Totals may not sum due 

to independent rounding. 

HP = horsepower 

N/A = Not Applicable. 

O&M = Operating and Maintenance 
5-16 

5.7.2 Employment Impacts within the Regulated Industry 

In recent RIAs we have applied estimates from a study by Morgenstern, Pizer and 

Shih (2002)1

 to derive the employment effects of new regulations within the regulated 

industry. (See, for example, the Regulatory Impact Analyses for the recent final MATS 

and final CSAPR regulations). Determining the direction of employment effects in the 

regulated industry is also challenging due to competing effects. Complying with the new 

or more stringent regulation requires additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the 

relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms in their production 

processes. Morgenstern, et al. (2002) demonstrate that environmental regulations can be 

understood as requiring regulated firms to add a new output (environmental quality) to 

their product mixes. Although legally compelled to satisfy this new demand, regulated 

firms have to finance this additional production with the proceeds of sales of their other 

(market) products. Satisfying this new demand requires additional inputs, including labor, 

and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms in their 

production processes. 

More specifically, Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) decompose the effect of 

regulation on net employment in the regulated sector into the following three subcomponents:

 The Demand Effect: higher production costs from complying with the regulation will 

raise market prices, reducing consumption (and production), thereby reducing 

demand for labor within the regulated industry. The “extent of this effect depends on 

the cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity of industry 

output.” (p. 416) 

 The Cost Effect: Assuming that the capital/labor ratio in the production process is 

held fixed, as “production costs rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce 

the same amount of output,” (p. 416). For example, to reduce pollutant emissions 

while holding output levels constant, regulated firms may require additional labor. 

 

1 Morgenstern, R. D., W. A. Pizer, and J. S. Shih. 2002. Jobs versus the Environment: An Industry-Level 

Perspective.‖ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3):412-436. 
5-17 

 The Factor-Shift Effect: Regulated firms’ production technologies may be more or 

less labor intensive after complying with the regulation (i.e., more/less labor is 

required relative to capital per dollar of output). “Environmental activities may be 

more labor intensive than conventional production,” meaning that “the amount of 

labor per dollar of output will rise.” However, activities may, instead, be less labor 

intensive because “cleaner operations could involve automation and less employment, 

for example.” (p. 416) 

The demand effect is expected to have an unambiguously negative effect on employment, 

the cost effect to have an unambiguously positive effect on employment, and the factor-shift 

effect to have an ambiguous effect on employment. Without more information with respect to 

the magnitudes of these three competing effects, it is not possible to predict the net 

environmental employment effect in the regulated sector. 

Using plant-level Census information between the years 1979 and 1991, Morgenstern et 

al. estimate the effects of pollution abatement expenditures on net employment in four highly 

polluting/regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). They 

conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in 

net employment in those sectors. More specifically, their results show that, on average across the 

industries studied, each additional $1 million (in 1987$) spent on pollution abatement results in a 

(statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.55 (+/- 2.24) jobs. As a result, the authors conclude 

that increases in pollution abatement expenditures can have positive effects on employment and 

do not necessarily cause economically significant employment changes. The conclusion is 

similar to Berman and Bui (2001), who found that increased air quality regulation in Los 

Angeles did not cause large employment changes. 

Ideally, the EPA would first apply the methodology of Morgenstern et al. to current 

pollution expenditure and market data for the regulated firms to identify the relationship between 

abatement costs and employment, then use this relationship to extrapolate the effect of new 

projected abatement costs on these firms. Unfortunately, current firm-level abatement cost and 

market characteristics are not available. In addition, there are important differences in the 

markets and regulatory settings analyzed in their study and the setting presented here that lead us 

to conclude that it is inappropriate to utilize their quantitative estimates to estimate the 

employment impacts from this reconsideration proposal. The differences between the underlying 

regulations motivating the abatement expenditures studied in Morgenstern et al. are potentially 

too many to allow for the direct transfer of their quantitative estimates for use in analysis of the 

proposed rule. There are also important differences between the industries affected by this 
5-18 

proposed rule and the four manufacturing industries studied by Morgenstern et al. For these 

reasons, we conclude there are too many uncertainties as to the comparability of the Morgenstern 

et al. study to apply their estimates to quantify the employment impacts within the regulated 

sector for this proposed regulation. 
6-1 

Section 6

SMALL ENTITY SCREENING ANALYSIS 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises. 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, the 

screening analysis indicates that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities (or “SISNOSE”). Under the analyses EPA considered, 

sales and revenue tests for establishments owned by model small entities are less than 1% except 

electric power generation (NAICS 2211 with receipts less than $100,000 per year) and crop and 

animal production (NAICS 111 and 112 with receipts less than $25,000 per year). These 

findings are similar to those for the final SI RICE rule promulgated in August 2010, though the 

impacts are lower due to the reduction in the cost estimates for these industries. 

6.1 Small Entity Data Set 

The industry sectors covered by the proposed rule were identified during the development 

of the cost analysis (EC/R, 2012). The Statistics of United States Business (SUSB) provides 

national information on the distribution of economic variables by industry and enterprise size 

(U.S. Census, 2012a, b).1

 The Census Bureau and the Office of Advocacy of the SBA supported 

and developed these files for use in a broad range of economic analyses.2 Statistics include the 

total number of establishments and receipts for all entities in an industry; however, many of these 

entities may not necessarily be covered by the proposed rule. SUSB also provides statistics by 

enterprise employment and receipt size. 

The Census Bureau’s definitions used in the SUSB are as follows: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 

 

1

The SUSB data do not provide establishment information for the national security NAICS code (92811) or irrigated 

farms. Since most national security installations are owned by the federal government (e.g., military bases), EPA 

assumes these entities would not be considered small. For irrigated farms, we relied on receipt data provided in 

the 2008 Farm and Irrigation Survey (USDA, 2009). 2

See http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ and http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html for additional details. 
6-2 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 

Because the SBA’s business size definitions (SBA, 2010) apply to an establishment’s 

“ultimate parent company,” we assumed in this analysis that the “enterprise” definition above is 

consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for SBREFA 

screening analyses and the terms are used interchangeably. 

6.2 Small Entity Economic Impact Measures 

The analysis generated a set of establishment sales tests (represented as cost-to-receipt 

ratios)3

 for NAICS codes associated with sectors listed in Table 6-1. Although the appropriate 

SBA size definition should be applied at the parent company (enterprise) level, we can only 

compute and compare ratios for a model establishment owned by an enterprise within an SUSB 

size range (employment or receipts). Using the SUSB size range helps us account for receipt 

differences between establishments owned by large and small enterprises and also allows us to 

consider the variation in small business definitions across affected industries. Using 

establishment receipts is also a conservative approach, because an establishment’s parent 

company (the “enterprise”) may have other economic resources that could be used to cover the 

costs of the final rule. 

6.2.1 Model Establishment Receipts and Annual Compliance Costs 

The sales test compares a representative establishment’s total annual engine costs to the 

average establishment receipts for enterprises in several size categories.4

 For industries with SBA 

 

3

The following metrics for other small entity economic impact measures (if applicable) would potentially include 

• small governments (if applicable): “revenue” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

government revenues and 

• small nonprofits (if applicable): “expenditure” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

operating expenses, 4

For the 1 to 20 employee category, we excluded SUSB data for enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises 

did not operate the entire year. 
6-3 

employment size standards, we calculated average establishment receipts for each enterprise 

employment range (Table 6-2).5

 For industries with SBA receipt size standards, we calculated 

Table 6-1. SI NESHAP for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE): Affected Sectors and SBA Small Business Size Standards 

Industry Description 

Corresponding 

NAICS 

SBA Size Standard for 

Businesses (November 5nd, 

2010) 

Type of Small 

Entity 

Electric Power Generation 2211 a Business and 

government 

Natural Gas Transmission 48621 $7.0 million in annual receipts Business 

Crude Petroleum & NG Production 211111 500 employees Business 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers 211112 500 employees Business 

National Security 92811 NA Government 

Hydro Power Units See NAICS 2211 1,000 employees Business and 

government 

Irrigation Sets Affects NAICS 111 and 

112 

Generally $750,000 or less in 

annual receipts 

Business 

Welders Affects industries that 

use heavy equipment 

such as construction, 

mining, farming 

Varies by 6-digit NAICS code; Business 

Example industry: 

NAICS 238 = $14 million in 

annual receipts 

a

NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122: A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is 

primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total 

electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. Source: U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 2010. “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American 

Industry Classification System Codes.” Effective November 5nd, 2010. Downloaded 2/16/12. 

average establishment receipts for each enterprise receipt range (Table 6-3). We included the 

utility sector in the second group, although the SBA size standard for this industry is defined in 

terms of physical units (megawatt hours) versus receipts. Crop and animal production (NAICS 

111 and 112) also have an SBA receipt size standard that defines a small business as receiving 

$750,000 or less in receipts per year. However, SUSB data were not available for these 

industries. Therefore, we conducted the sales test using the following range of establishment 

receipts: farms with annual receipts of $25,000 or less, farms with annual receipts of $100,000 or 

less, farms with annual receipts of $500,000 or less, and farms with annual receipts of $750,000 

or less. 

 

5

 2007 Economic Census data are at http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/. 
6-4

Table 6-2. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise: 2009 ($2009 Million/Establishment) 

SBA Size 

Standard 

for Businesses 

(effective 

November 5, 

2010)

Owned By Enterprises with Employee Range: 

NAICS NAICS Description 

All 

Enterprises 

1–20 

Employees 

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 

500+ 

Employees 

211111 Crude petroleum & 

natural gas extraction 

500 employees $30.22 $2.15 $33.02 $151,76 1,570 

211112 Natural gas liquid 

extraction 

500 employees $172.81 $0.30 NA $11.88 NA 

335312 Motor & generator mfg 1,000 employees $18.58 $1.37 $6.14 $15.96 $29.47 333992 Welding & soldering 

equipment mfg 

500 employees $18.51 $1.56 $6.60 $33.25 NA 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail Employment Sizes: 2009.”

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ Downloaded 2/22/12. 

NA = Not available. 
6-5

Table 6-3. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise Receipt Range: 2007 ($2008 /establishment) 

SBA Size Standard 

for Businesses 

(effective November 

5, 2010)

Owned By Enterprises with Receipt Range: 

NAICS NAICS Description 

All 

Enterprises 

0–99K 

Receipts

100–

499.9K 

Receipts

500–

999.9K

Receipts

1,000–

4,999.9K 

Receipts 

5,000,000–

9,999,999K 

Receipts 

<10,000K 

Receipts 

10,000–

49,999K 

Receipts

50,000–

99,999K 

Receipts

100,000K+ 

Receipts 

2211 Electric Power 

Generation 

a $261.0 $31.2 $272.5 $724.9 $2,399.5 $7,330.5 $2,617.7 $24,786.

9 

$67,706.

8 

$1,394,051

.0 

622110 Hospitals $34.5 million in annual 

receipts 

$202,058.7 NA $23.82 NA $3,255.0 $7,291.0 $4,692.1 $23,481.

9 

$67,545,

6 

$508,705.8

237310 Highway , street, and 

bride construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$7.74 $0.06 $0.32 $0.84 $2.74 $8.11 $2.00 $22.62 $56.48 $56.81 

237110 Water and sewer line 

and related structures, construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$3.89 $0.06 $0.32 $0.85 $2.73 $8.17 $1.84 $20.62 $45.05 $47.27 

237130 Power 

andcommunication line and related structures construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$3.39 $0.06 $0.31 $0.83 $2.52 $7.75 $1.32 $16.84 $34.50 $23.86 

237990 zOther heavy and 

civil engineering construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$2.66 $0.06 $0.30 $0.83 $2.48 $7.76 $0.99 $18.72 $40.53 $42.35 

92811 National Security NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Notes: Note: Industries in green were included for consistency with the analysis done for finalrule. National Security is included in this table but does not have 

size standards. 

a NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122: A firm in these industries is defined as small by SBA if, including its affiliates, it is 

primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 

NA = Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail Employment Sizes: 2009.”

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ 
6-6 

Annual entity compliance costs vary depending on the size of the SI engines used at the 

affected establishment. Absent facility-specific information, we computed per-entity compliance 

costs based for three different cases based on representative establishments—Cases 1, 2, and 3 

(see Table 6-4). Each representative establishment differs based on the size and number of SI 

engines being used. Compliance costs are calculated by summing the total annualized 

compliance costs for the relevant engine categories, dividing the sum by the total existing 

population of those engines, and multiplying the average engine cost by the number of engines 

assumed to be at the establishment. Since NAICS 2211 and 48621 are fundamentally different 

than other industries considered in this analysis due to the number of engines affected and 

amount of cost incurred resulting from this proposed rule, we used different assumptions about 

what constitutes the representative establishment and report these assumptions separately. 

 Case 1: The representative establishment for all industries uses three 750+ hp engines 

with an average compliance cost of $680 to $730 per engine, resulting in a total 

annualized compliance cost of approximately $2,040 to $2,200 for this representative 

establishment. 

 Case 2: The representative establishment in NACIS 2211 and 48621 uses two 25 to 

750+ hp engines with an average compliance cost of $412 per engine, resulting in a 

total annualized compliance cost of $824 for this representative establishment. For all 

other industries, the representative establishment uses two 25 to 300 hp engines with 

an average compliance cost of $246 per engine, resulting in a total compliance cost of 

$492 for this representative establishment. 

 Case 3: The representative establishment for all industries uses two 50 to 100 hp 

engines with an average compliance cost of $73 per engine, resulting in a total 

compliance cost of $145 for this representative establishment. 

EPA believes that small entities are most likely to face costs similar to Case 2 (columns 

shaded in gray in Table 6-4) because most of the engines to be affected by this proposed rule in 

NAICS 335312, 333992, 211111, and 211112 are under 300 hp capacity, and most small entities 

in these industries will own engines of this size or smaller. This is corroborated by Figure 6-1 

and 6-2 which shows the distribution of engine population and compliance costs by engine size 

for all industries. However, it is difficult to make a similar claim for NAICS 2211 and 48621 

based on the existing distribution of engines in these industries.6

 

6

This claim also cannot be made for NAICS 92811: National Security. However, since most national security 

installations are owned by the federal government (e.g., military bases), EPA assumes these entities would not be 

considered small. 
6-7 

For the sales test, we divided the representative establishment compliance costs reported 

in Table 6-4 by the representative establishment receipts reported in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. This is 

known as the cost-to-receipt (i.e., sales) ratio, or the “sales test.” The “sales test” is the impact 

Table 6-4. Representative Establishment Costs Used for Small Entity Analysis ($2009) 

 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 

 

NAICS 

2211, 48621 

(+750 hp 

only) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(+750 hp 

only) 

NAICS 

2211,48621 

(25-750+ 

hp) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(25–300 

hp) 

NAICS 

2211, 

48621 

(25–100 

hp only) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(25–100 

hp only) 

Total Annualized Costs ($) $7,710,388 $586,434 $82,806,141 $28,057,798 $8,510,985 $6,174,805 

Engine Population 10,548 863 200,974 114,517 117,040 84,913 

Average Engine Cost 

($/engine) $731 $680 $412 $246 $73 $73 

Assumed Engines Per 

Establishment 3 3 2 2 2 2 

Total Annualized Costs per 

Establishment $2,193 $2,040 $824 $492 $145 $145 
6-8 

Figure 6-1. Distribution of Engine Population by Size for All Industries 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Power

Generation

(2211)

Natural Gas

Transmission

(48621)

Crude Petroleum

&NG Production

(211111)

Natural Gas

Liquid Producers

(211112)

National Security

(92811)

Hydro Power

Units (335312)

Irrigation Sets

(335312)

Welders

(333992)

>750 hp

600‐750 hp

500‐600 hp

300‐500 hp

175‐300 hp

100‐175 hp

50‐100 hp

25‐50 hp
6-9 

Figure 6-2. Distribution of Compliance Costs by Engine Size for All Industries 

methodology EPA employs in analyzing small entity impacts as opposed to a “profits test,” in 

which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits. 

This is because revenues or sales data are commonly available data for entities normally 

impacted by EPA regulations and profits data normally made available are often not the true 

profit earned by firms because of accounting and tax considerations. Revenues as typically 

published are usually correct figures and are more reliably reported when compared to profit 

data. The use of a “sales test” for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking such as this 

one is consistent with guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA7

 and is consistent 

with guidance published by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost as a 

percentage of total revenues is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation 

to increases on large entities.8

 

7

The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types of small business analysis that should be 

considered can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf, pp. 24-25. 8

U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, May 2003. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Power

Generation

(2211)

Natural Gas

Transmission

(48621)

Crude Petroleum

&NG Production

(211111)

Natural Gas

Liquid Producers

(211112)

National Security

(92811)

Hydro Power

Units (335312)

Irrigation Sets

(335312)

Welders

(333992)

>750 hp

600‐750 hp

500‐600 hp

300‐500 hp

175‐300 hp

100‐175 hp

50‐100 hp

25‐50 hp
6-10 

If the cost-to-receipt ratio is less than 1%, then we consider the proposed rule to not have 

a significant impact on the establishment company in question. We summarize the industries 

with cost-to-receipt ratios exceeding 1% below: 

Primary Analysis: 

 Case 2: NAICS 2211 with receipts less than $100,000 per year and NAICS 111 and 

112 with receipts less than $25,000 per year 

 Case 3: No industries 

Sensitivity Analysis (unlikely): 

 Case 1: NAICS 2211 with receipts less than $100,000 per year 

In the Case 2 primary analysis, only establishments in NAICS 2211 with receipts less 

than $100,000 per year (less than 5 percent of the total), and establishments in NAICS 111 and 

112 with receipts less than $25,000 per year (around 30 percent of the total) have cost-to-receipt 

ratios above 1%. However, establishments earning this level of receipts are likely to be using 

smaller engines than those assumed in Case 2, such as 25 to 300 hp engines. The results of our 

Case 3 analysis demonstrate that these establishments are not significantly impacted when taking 

this engine size into account. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, we certify 

that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of this proposal action to all affected 

small entities across all industries affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs greater than 1 percent of sales is less than 2 percent according 

to this analysis. We thus conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (SISNOSE) for this proposed rule. 

Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule on 

small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA took special steps to ensure that the 

burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with industry 

trade associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, EPA proposes 

to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of area sources affected under this RICE rule with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We continue to be interested in the 
6-11 

potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 

to such impacts.

6.3 Small Government Entities 

The rule also covers sectors that include entities owned by small and large governments. 

However, given the uncertainty and data limitations associated with identifying and 

appropriately classifying these entities, we computed a “revenue” test for a model small 

government, where the annualized compliance cost is a percentage of annual government 

revenues (U.S. Census, 2005a, b). The use of a “revenue test” for estimating impacts to small 

governments for a rulemaking such as this one is consistent with guidance offered by EPA on 

compliance with SBREFA,9

 and is consistent with guidance published by the US SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy.10 For example, from the 2007 Census (in 2008 dollars), the average revenue for 

small governments (counties and municipalities) with populations fewer than 10,000 is $4 

million per entity, and the average revenue for local governments with populations fewer than 

50,000 is $9 million per entity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009b). For the 

smallest group of local governments (<10,000 people), the cost-to-revenue ratio would be 0.2% 

or less under each case. For the larger group of governments (<50,000 people), the cost-torevenue ratio is 0.1% or less under all cases. 

 

9

The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rule writers regarding the types of small business analysis that should 

be considered can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf, pp. 24-25. 10U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, May 2003. 
7-1 

Section 7

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

Synopsis 

Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed SI RICE NESHAP 

reconsideration is expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and have 

ancillary co-benefits that would lower ambient concentrations of NO2, PM2.5 and ozone. In this 

section, we quantify the monetized co-benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to 

ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by reducing emissions of precursors. We estimate the 

total monetized co-benefits to be $62 million to $150 million at a 3% discount rate and $55 

million to $140 million at a 7% discount rate in 2013. All estimates are in 2010$. These 

estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and 

premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. These estimates 

reflect EPA’s most current interpretation of the scientific literature. Higher or lower estimates of 

benefits are possible using other assumptions; examples of this are provided in Figure 7-2. Data, 

resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from 

several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, carbon 

monoxide, NO2 and ozone, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to 

reducing emissions of PM precursors such as NOx, this rule would reduce 1,800 tons of HAP and 

22,000 tons of carbon monoxide each year.

7.1 Calculation of PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits 

This proposed reconsideration NESHAP would reduce emissions of NOX, and VOCs. 

Because these emissions are precursors to PM2.5, reducing these emissions would also reduce 

PM2.5 formation, human exposure and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Due to 

analytical limitations, it was not possible to provide a comprehensive estimate of PM2.5-related 

benefits or provide estimates of the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO2 or 

ozone. Instead, we used the “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate these benefits. The 

methodology employed in this analysis is similar to the work described in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009), but represents an improvement that EPA believes would provide more reliable 

estimates of PM2.5-related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. The key 

assumptions are described in detail below. These PM2.5 benefit-per-ton estimates provide the 

total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) 

Comment [A9]: Don’t these changes 

increase emissions relative to 2010 rule? 
7-2 

of reducing one ton of PM2.5 from a specified source. EPA has used the benefit per-ton technique 

in several previous RIAs, including the recent SO2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

The Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009b) 

identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM2.5, which include premature 

morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposures. Table 7-

1 shows the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in those benefit-per-ton estimates, but 

this table does not include entries for the unquantified health effects associated with exposure to 

ozone and NO2 nor welfare effects such as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment that are 

described in section 7.2. It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified benefit 

categories is not exhaustive, nor is quantification of each effect complete. 
7-3 

Table 7-1: Human Health Effects of PM2.5 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

(refers to 

CSAPR RIA) 

Improved Human Health 

Reduced incidence of 

premature mortality 

from exposure to PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation 

estimates (age >25 or age >30) 

  Section 5.4 

Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.4 

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.4 

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all 

ages)   Section 5.4 

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age 

>20)   Section 5.4 

Emergency room visits for asthma (all 

ages)   Section 5.4 

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)   Section 5.4 

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)   Section 5.4 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics 

age 9-11)   Section 5.4 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-

18)   Section 5.4 

Lost work days (age 18-65)   Section 5.4 

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65)   Section 5.4 

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)   Section 5.4 

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages) -- -- Section 5.4 

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 

50-79) -- -- Section 5.4 

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other 

ages) -- -- PM ISA2

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, nonbronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and 

populations) 

-- -- PM ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects 

(e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, 

etc) 

-- -- PM ISA2,3

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity 

effects -- -- PM ISA2,3

1 We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. 2

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods. 3

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other 

significant concerns over the strength of the association. 

Consistent with the Portland Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a), the benefits estimates 

utilize the concentration-response functions as reported in the epidemiology literature, as well as 

the 12 functions obtained in EPA’s expert elicitation study as a sensitivity analysis. 
7-4 

 One estimate is based on the concentration-response (C-R) function developed from 

the extended analysis of American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort, as reported in Pope 

et al. (2002), a study that EPA has previously used to generate its primary benefits 

estimate. When calculating the estimate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as 

reported in the study without an adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 

μg/m3

 as was done in recent (2006-2009) Office of Air and Radiation RIAs. 

 One estimate is based on the C-R function developed from the extended analysis of 

the Harvard Six Cities cohort, as reported by Laden et al (2006). This study, 

published after the completion of the Staff Paper for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, has 

been used as an alternative estimate in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA and PM2.5 benefits 

estimates in RIAs completed since the PM2.5 NAAQS. When calculating the 

estimate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as reported in the study without an 

adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 μg/m3

 as was done in recent 

(2006-2009) RIAs. 

 Twelve estimates are based on the C-R functions from EPA’s expert elicitation study 

(Roman et al., 2008) on the PM2.5 -mortality relationship and interpreted for benefits 

analysis in EPA’s final RIA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For that study, twelve experts 

(labeled A through L) provided independent estimates of the PM2.5 -mortality 

concentration-response function. EPA practice has been to develop independent 

estimates of PM2.5 -mortality estimates corresponding to the concentration-response 

function provided by each of the twelve experts, to better characterize the degree of 

variability in the expert responses. 

The effect coefficients are drawn from epidemiology studies examining two large 

population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Pope et al., 2002) and the Harvard Six 

Cities cohort (Laden et al., 2006).1

 These are logical choices for anchor points in our 

presentation because, while both studies are well designed and peer reviewed, there are strengths 

and weaknesses inherent in each, which we believe argues for using both studies to generate 

benefits estimates. Previously, EPA had calculated benefits based on these two empirical 

studies, but derived the range of benefits, including the minimum and maximum results, from an 

expert elicitation of the relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and premature mortality (Roman 

 

1

 These two studies specify multi-pollutant models that control for SO2, among other co-pollutants. 
7-5 

et al., 2008).2

 Within this assessment, we include the benefits estimates derived from the 

concentration-response function provided by each of the twelve experts to better characterize the 

uncertainty in the concentration-response function for mortality and the degree of variability in 

the expert responses. Because the experts used these cohort studies to inform their 

concentration-response functions, benefits estimates using these functions generally fall between 

results using these epidemiology studies (see Figure 7-2). In general, the expert elicitation 

results support the conclusion that the benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial. 

Readers interested in reviewing the general methodology for creating the benefit-per-ton 

estimates used in this analysis should consult the draft Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

estimating the benefits per ton of reducing PM2.5 and its precursors from in the “Other Non-EGU 

Point” sector(U.S. EPA, 2012).3

 The primary difference between the estimates used in this 

analysis and the estimates reported in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) is the air quality 

modeling data utilized. In this analysis, we apply these national benefit-per-ton estimates 

calculated for this category for NOx and multiply them by the corresponding emission 

reductions. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient 

to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. NOx is the primary PM2.5 precursors 

affected by this rule. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health 

effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and 

magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. The sector-specific 

modeling does not provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing VOC 

emissions, but these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors 

(U.S. EPA, 2012). 

The benefit-per-ton coefficients in this analysis were derived using modified versions of 

the health impact functions used in the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (U.S. EPA, 

2006). Specifically, this analysis uses the method first applied in the Portland Cement NESHAP 

RIA (U.S. EPA, 2009a), which applied the functions directly from the epidemiology studies 

 

2

 Please see the Section 5.2 of the Portland Cement RIA in Appendix 5A for more information regarding the change 

in the presentation of benefits estimates. 3

 Stationary engines are included in the other non-EGU point source category. If the affected stationary engines are 

more rural than the average of the non-EGU sources modeled, then it is possible that the benefits may be 

somewhat less than we have estimated here. The TSD provides the geographic distribution of the air quality 

changes associated with this sector. It is important to emphasize that this modeling represents the best available 

information on the air quality impact on a per ton basis for these sources. 
7-6 

without an adjustment for an assumed threshold. Removing the threshold assumption is a key 

difference between the method used in this analysis of PM benefits and the methods used in 

RIAs prior to Portland Cement proposal, and we now calculate incremental benefits down to the 

lowest modeled PM2.5 air quality levels.4

 

Based on our review of the current body of scientific literature, EPA now estimates PMrelated mortality without applying an assumed concentration threshold. EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009b), which was reviewed by EPA’s 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009a; U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009b), 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model 

most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while 

recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function. 

Consistent with this finding, we have conformed the previous threshold sensitivity 

analysis to the current state of the PM science by incorporating a “Lowest Measured Level” 

(LML) assessment, which is a method EPA has employed in several recent RIAs including the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (U.S. EPA, 2011b). This information allows readers to determine 

the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of each 

study; in general, our confidence in the estimated PM mortality decreases as we consider air 

quality levels further below the LML in major cohort studies that estimate PM-related mortality. 

While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated 

PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PMrelated mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. It is important 

to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of 

the major cohort studies, which is 5.8 μg/m3

. Just because we have greater confidence in the 

benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we have no confidence that benefits occur 

below the LML. For a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a 

threshold in the PM2.5-mortality relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the ConcentrationResponse Function for PM2.5-related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b). 

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. However, we believe 

that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. 

 

4

 Additional updates since the Cement RIA include a revised VSL and updated baseline incidence rates. 
7-7 

As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population 

exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the 

benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one 

parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and 

change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to air pollution 

below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts 

as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, which we are 

unable to quantify for rules without rule-specific air quality modeling, is the shift in exposure 

associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML 

assessment for this rule. The results of this analysis are provided in Section 7.3. 

As is the nature of RIAs, the assumptions and methods used to estimate air quality 

benefits evolve over time to reflect the Agency’s most current interpretation of the scientific and 

economic literature. For a period of time (2004-2008), the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

valued mortality risk reductions using a value of statistical life (VSL) estimate derived from a 

limited analysis of some of the available studies. OAR arrived at a VSL using a range of $1 

million to $10 million (2000$) consistent with two meta-analyses of the wage-risk literature. 

The $1 million value represented the lower end of the interquartile range from the Mrozek and 

Taylor (2002) meta-analysis of 33 studies. The $10 million value represented the upper end of 

the interquartile range from the Viscusi and Aldy (2003) meta-analysis of 43 studies. The mean 

estimate of $5.5 million (2000$)5

 was also consistent with the mean VSL of $5.4 million 

estimated in the Kochi et al. (2006) meta-analysis. However, the Agency neither changed its 

official guidance on the use of VSL in rulemakings nor subjected the interim estimate to a 

scientific peer-review process through the Science Advisory Board (SAB) or other peer-review 

group. 

During this time, the Agency continued work to update its guidance on valuing mortality 

risk reductions, including commissioning a report from meta-analytic experts to evaluate 

methodological questions raised by EPA and the SAB on combining estimates from the various 

data sources. In addition, the Agency consulted several times with the Science Advisory Board 

Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC) on the issue. With input from the 

meta-analytic experts, the SAB-EEAC advised the Agency to update its guidance using specific, 

appropriate meta-analytic techniques to combine estimates from unique data sources and 

 

5

 After adjusting the VSL for a different currency year (2010$) and to account for income growth to 2015 of the $5.5 

million value, the VSL is $8.0 million. 
7-8 

different studies, including those using different methodologies (i.e., wage-risk and stated 

preference) (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2007). 

 

Until updated guidance is available, the Agency determined that a single, peer-reviewed 

estimate applied consistently best reflects the SAB-EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, the 

Agency has decided to apply the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000)6

 while the Agency continues its efforts to 

update its guidance on this issue. This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates 

derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 

1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$).7

 The Agency is committed to 

using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing mortality risk reductions 

and has made significant progress in responding to the SAB-EEAC’s specific recommendations. 

In implementing these rules, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM2.5 

below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some areas and assist 

other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIAs also calculate PM 

benefits, there are important differences worth noting in the design and analytical objectives of 

each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and benefits of attaining a new air 

quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission control strategies for different sources. 

In short, NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the control strategies that States may 

choose to enact when implementing a NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS does not directly result 

in costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and are not intended to 

be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result in specific costs of control and 

emission reductions. However, some costs and benefits estimated in this RIA account for the 

same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM2.5 NAAQS RIA. 

By contrast, the emission reductions for implementation rules are from a specific class of 

well-characterized sources . In general, EPA is more confident in the magnitude and location of 

the emission reductions for implementation rules rather than illustrative NAAQS analyses. 

Emission reductions achieved under these and other promulgated rules will ultimately be 

reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs 

 

6

 In revised Economic Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2010c), EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the 

understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 

Therefore, this report does not represent final agency policy. 7

 This value is $4.8 in 1990$. In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account for a different currency year ($2010) 

and to account for income growth to 2015. After applying these adjustments to the $6.3 million value, the VSL is 

$9.2 million. 
7-9 

and benefits associated with attaining the NAAQS. EPA remains forward looking towards the 

next iteration of the 5-year review cycle for the NAAQS, and as a result does not issue updated 

RIAs for existing NAAQS that retroactively update the baseline for NAAQS implementation. 

For more information on the relationship between the NAAQS and rules such as analyzed here, 

please see Section 1.2.4 of the SO2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010a). 

 
7-10 

Figure 7.1 illustrates the relative breakdown of the monetized PM2.5 health benefits. 

Figure 7-1: Breakdown of Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits using Mortality Function 

from Pope et al. (2002)* 

*This pie chart breakdown is illustrative, using the results based on Pope et al. (2002) as an example. Using the 

Laden et al. (2006) function for premature mortality, the percentage of total monetized benefits due to adult 

mortality would be 97%. This chart shows the breakdown using a 3% discount rate, and the results would be similar 

if a 7% discount rate was used. 

 Table 7-2 provides a general summary of the monetized PM-related health benefits by 

precursor, including the emission reductions and benefit-per-ton estimates at discount rates of 

3% and 7%.8

 Table 7-3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidences as a result of 

the pollution reductions. In Table 7-4, we provide the benefits using our anchor points of Pope 

et al. and Laden et al. as well as the results from the expert elicitation on PM mortality. Figure 

7-2 provides a visual representation of the range of PM2.5-related benefits estimates using 

 

8

 To comply with Circular A-4, EPA provides monetized benefits using discount rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). 

These benefits are estimated for a specific analysis year (i.e., 2013), and most of the PM benefits occur within 

that year with two exceptions: acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) and premature mortality. For AMIs, we 

assume 5 years of follow-up medical costs and lost wages. For premature mortality, we assume that there is a 

“cessation” lag between PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although the 

structure of the lag is uncertain, EPA follows the advice of the SAB-HES to assume a segmented lag structure 

characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the first year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 

20 after the reduction in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004). Changes in the lag assumptions do not change the total 

number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those deaths. Therefore, discounting only affects the AMI 

costs after the analysis year and the valuation of premature mortalities that occur after the analysis year. As such, 

the monetized benefits using a 7% discount rate are only approximately 10% less than the monetized benefits 

using a 3% discount rate. 

Adult Mortality ‐ Pope et

al. 93%

ChronicBronchitis 4%

AMI 2%

Acute Respiratory Symptoms

0.5%

InfantMortality 0.4%

Work Loss Days 0.2%

HospitalAdmissions, Cardio

0.2% HospitalAdmissions, Resp

0.04%

Asthma Exacerbation 0.01%

Acute Bronchitis 0.01%

UpperResp Symp 0.00%

LowerResp Symp 0.00%

ERVisits, Resp 0.00%

Other1%
7-11 

concentration-response functions supplied by experts. Figure 7-3 shows a breakdown of 

monetized benefits by engine size. 

 The benefit-per-ton estimates shown in this RIA are different than the benefit-per-ton 

estimates cited in the 2010 final SI RICE RIA for two reasons. First, these estimates are based 

on updated air quality modeling, which results in slightly higher benefits per ton for other nonEGU point sources than the previous modeling. Second, these estimates have been inflated to 

2010$. Third, the new air quality modeling did not provide estimates associated with reducing 

VOCs. 

Table 7-2: General Summary of Monetized PM2.5-Related Health Co-Benefits Estimates 

for the Proposed SI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration (millions of 2010$)*

Pollutant 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Pope, 

3%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Laden, 

3%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Pope, 

7%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Laden, 

7%) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

of 2010$ at 3%) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

of 2010$ at 7%) 

PM2.5 Precursors 

 NOX 9,648 $6,400 $16,000 $5,700 $14,000 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

 Total $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

*

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

across columns. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct 

exposure to NO2, ozone exposure, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have 

equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different 

propensity to form PM2.5. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient 

fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology. 

 
7-12 

Table 7-3: Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5-Related Co-Benefits 

for Proposed SI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration* 

Avoided Premature Mortality

Pope et al. 7 

Laden et al. 18 

Avoided Morbidity 

Chronic Bronchitis 5 

Emergency Department Visits, Respiratory 5 

Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 1 

Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 3 

Acute Bronchitis 11 

Lower Respiratory 140 

Upper Respiratory 110 

Minor Restricted Activity Days 5,600 

Work Loss Days 950 

Asthma Exacerbation 230 

Acute Myocardial Infarction 8 

* All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. All 

fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis 

because of the benefit-per-ton methodology. 
7-13 

Table 7-4: All PM2.5 Co-Benefits Estimates for the Proposed SI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration at discount rates of 3% and 7% in 2013 (in millions of 

2010$)* 

 3% 7% 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature

Pope et al. $62 $55 

Laden et al. $150 $140 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation 

Expert A $160 $150 

Expert B $120 $110 

Expert C $120 $110 

Expert D $87 $78 

Expert E $200 $180 

Expert F $110 $100 

Expert G $74 $66 

Expert H $93 $83 

Expert I $120 $110 

Expert J $100 $89 

Expert K $24 $21 

Expert L $82 $73 

*

All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. The benefits estimates from the Expert Elicitation are provided 

as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated with the concentrationresponse function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology 
7-14 

 

Figure 7-2: Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed SI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration in 2013 

*This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the 

Pope et al. study and the Laden et al study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert elicitation on 

PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates 

are based in part on the concentration-response function provided in those studies. 

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions(2010$)

PM2.5mortality benefits estimates derived from 2 epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions

3% DR

7% DR
7-15 

Figure 7-3: Breakdown of Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed SI RICE 

NESHAP Reconsideration by Engine Size 

7.2 Unquantified Benefits 

The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable 

to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource 

limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from 

several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, CO, 

NO2, and ozone exposure, as well as ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment. This does not 

imply that there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. These benefits are 

described qualitatively in this section. 

7.2.1 HAP Benefits 

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 

42% since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that most 

Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the potential to 

cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c).9

 The levels of air toxics to which people are 

exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they 

engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types and locations that are 

 

9 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

Area 500‐600 HP

21%

Area 600‐750 HP

5%

Area >750 HP

74%
7-16 

of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA.10 The most recent NATA was 

conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes four steps: 

1) Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 

2) Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States 

3) Estimating population exposures across the United States 

4) Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both 

cancer and noncancer effects 

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have 

increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 

in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are 

formaldehyde and benzene.11 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other 

emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and 

background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk. 

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,12 subchronic,13 or acute14 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

 

10 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, 

this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA.(2011). 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ 11 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 12 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species). 13 Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species). 14 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less. 
7-17 

Figure 7-4 and Figure depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis, according to EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower 

than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions. 

Figure 7-4 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure 

from outdoor sources (2005 NATA) 

Deleted: Figure 

Deleted: Figure 7-5 
7-18 

Figure 7-5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA) 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were 

unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced 

as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA 

has quantified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non-cancer risk 

(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed 

through risk assessment procedures.15 These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, 

are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most 

likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely 

to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates would 

overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high-end risk estimates in past 

analyses, advice from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid 

 

15The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the 

probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3

 of 

a pollutant. 
7-19 

using high-end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2002). Since this time, EPA has 

continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP. 

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 

(U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with 

reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we did not attempt to 

monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a 

qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by 

these rules.EPA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by 

continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of 

risk. 

Although numerous HAPs may be emitted from SI RICE, a few HAPs account for over 90% 

of the total mass of HAPs emissions emitted. These HAPs are formaldehyde (72%), acetaldehyde 

(8%), acrolein (7%), methanol (3%), and benzene (3%). Although we do not have estimates of 

emission reductions for each HAP, this rule is anticipated to reduce 1,800 tons of HAPs each year. 

Below we describe the health effects associated with the top 5 HAPs by mass emitted from SI RICE.
7-20 

Formaldehyde 

Since 1987, EPA has classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen based on 

evidence in humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and monkeys.16 Substantial additional research 

since that time informs current scientific understanding of the health effects associated with 

exposure to formaldehyde. These include recently published research conducted by the National 

Cancer Institute (NCI) which found an increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and 

lymphohematopoietic malignancies such as leukemia among workers exposed to 

formaldehyde.17,18 In an analysis of the lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality from an extended 

follow-up of these workers, NCI confirmed an association between lymphohematopoietic cancer 

risk and peak formaldehyde exposures.19 A recent NIOSH study of garment workers also found 

increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers exposed to formaldehyde.20 Extended 

follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers did not find evidence of an increase in 

nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing statistically significant excess 

in lung cancers was reported.21

In the past 15 years there has been substantial research on the inhalation dosimetry for 

formaldehyde in rodents and primates by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT, 

now renamed the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences), with a focus on use of rodent data for 

refinement of the quantitative cancer dose-response assessment.22,23,24 CIIT’s risk assessment of 

 

16 U.S. EPA. 1987. Assessment of Health Risks to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents from Exposure to 

Formaldehyde, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 17 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic 

malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95: 1615-

1623. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 18 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among 

workers in formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-1130. Docket EPA-HQOAR-2010-0162. 19 Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoover, R. N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. 

Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: The National 

Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751-761. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 20 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. 

Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193-200. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 21 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers 

exposed to formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 22 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2003. Biologically 

motivated computational modeling of formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. Tox Sci 75: 432-447. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 23 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2004. Human respiratory 

tract cancer risks of inhaled formaldehyde: Dose-response predictions derived from biologically-motivated 

computational modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset. Tox Sci 82: 279-296. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0162. 
7-21 

formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic and dosimetric information on formaldehyde. These data 

were modeled using a biologically-motivated two-stage clonal growth model for cancer and also 

a point of departure based on a Benchmark Dose approach. However, it should be noted that 

recent research published by EPA indicates that when two-stage modeling assumptions are 

varied, resulting dose-response estimates can vary by several orders of magnitude.25,26,27,28 These 

findings are not supportive of interpreting the CIIT model results as providing a conservative 

(health protective) estimate of human risk.29 EPA research also examined the contribution of the 

two-stage modeling for formaldehyde towards characterizing the relative weights of key events 

in the mode-of-action of a carcinogen. For example, the model-based inference in the published 

CIIT study that formaldehyde’s direct mutagenic action is not relevant to the compound’s 

tumorigenicity was found not to hold under variations of modeling assumptions.30

Based on the developments of the last decade, in 2004, the working group of the IARC 

concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), on the basis of sufficient 

evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals - a higher classification than 

previous IARC evaluations. After reviewing the currently available epidemiological evidence, 

the IARC (2006) characterized the human evidence for formaldehyde carcinogenicity as 

“sufficient,” based upon the data on nasopharyngeal cancers; the epidemiologic evidence on 

leukemia was characterized as “strong.”31

Formaldehyde exposure also causes a range of noncancer health effects, including 

irritation of the eyes (burning and watering of the eyes), nose and throat. Effects from repeated 

 

24 Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT).1999. Formaldehyde: Hazard characterization and dose-response 

assessment for carcinogenicity by the route of inhalation. CIIT, September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, 

NC. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 25 U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-Stage Clonal Growth Models for Formaldehyde with 

Relevance to Other Biologically-Based Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/103, 2008. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 26 Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; .et .al. (2008) Uncertainties in biologically-based modeling of 

formaldehyde-induced cancer risk: identification of key issues. Risk Anal 28(4):907-923. Docket EPA-HQOAR-2010-0162. 27 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; et. al. (2007) Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 

formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 28 Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; .et .al. (2008) Sensitivity analysis of biologically motivated model for formaldehydeinduced respiratory cancer in humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 29 Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; .et .al. (2008) Sensitivity analysis of biologically motivated model for formaldehydeinduced respiratory cancer in humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 30 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; et. al. (2007) Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 

formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 31 International Agency for Research on Cancer (2006) Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-

ol. Monographs Volume 88. World Health Organization, Lyon, France. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 
7-22 

exposure in humans include respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal epithelial 

lesions such as metaplasia and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest that formaldehyde may also 

cause airway inflammation – including eosinophil infiltration into the airways. There are several 

studies that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the risk of asthma – particularly in the 

young.32,33

 The above-mentioned rodent and human studies, as well as mechanistic information and 

their analyses, were evaluated in EPA’s recent Draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde – 

Inhalation Assessment through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. This 

draft IRIS assessment was released in June 2010 for public review and comment and external 

peer review by the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC released their review report in 

April 2011 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142). The EPA is currently revising 

the draft assessment in response to this review. 

Acetaldehyde 

Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a probable human carcinogen, based 

on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.34 

Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) in the 11th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as 

possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the IARC.35,36 The primary noncancer effects of 

exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.37 

 

32 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for Formaldehyde. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 33 WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 40: Formaldehyde. Published under the joint 

sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization, and the 

World Health Organization, and produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the 

Sound Management of Chemicals. Geneva. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of 

Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. 36 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1999. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, 

and hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans, 

Vol 71. Lyon, France. 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of 

Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 
7-23 

Acrolein 

 EPA determined in 2003 that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be 

determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the 

carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of 

carcinogenicity.38 The IARC determined in 1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its 

carcinogenicity in humans.39

Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure 

resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense 

irritancy of this carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who 

suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory reactions within minutes of exposure.40 These 

data and additional studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are 

summarized in EPA’s 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for acrolein.41 Evidence available 

from studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m3

) for five minutes 

may elicit subjective complaints of eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more 

extensive eye, nose and respiratory symptoms.42 Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract 

of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein.43 Acute 

exposure effects in animal studies report bronchial hyper-responsiveness.44 In a recent study, the 

acute respiratory irritant effects of exposure to 1.1 ppm acrolein were more pronounced in mice 

with allergic airway disease by comparison to non-diseased mice which also showed decreases in 

 

38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 39 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 63, Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other industrial chemicals, World 

Health Organization, Lyon, France. 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

2003. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

EPA/635/R-03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. p. 11. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 
7-24 

respiratory rate.45 Based on these animal data and demonstration of similar effects in humans 

(i.e., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals with compromised respiratory function (e.g., 

emphysema, asthma) are expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to 

strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. 

Benzene 

The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) 

by all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, 

including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow 

cells in mice.46,47,48 EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal relationship between 

benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene 

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The IARC 

has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the DHHS has characterized benzene as a 

known human carcinogen.49,50 A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood 

disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term 

exposure to benzene.51,52 

 

45 Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. 2003. Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to 

irritants in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1563-1571. 46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 47 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982. 48 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite 

hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, 

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:3691-3695. 49 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk 

of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. 51 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. 52 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
7-25 

Methanol 

Exposure of humans to methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in central nervous 

system depression and degenerative changes in the brain and visual systems. After inhaled or 

ingested, methanol is converted to formate, a highly toxic metabolite that within the course of a 

few hours can cause narcosis, metabolic acidosis, headaches, severe abdominal and leg pain and 

visual degeneration that can lead to blindness.53

Methanol has been demonstrated to cause developmental toxicity in rats and mice, and 

reproductive and developmental toxicity in monkeys. A number of studies have reported adverse 

effects in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to methanol by inhalation including reduced 

weight of brain pituitary gland, thymus, thyroid, reduced overall fetal body weight and increased 

incidence of extra ribs and cleft palate.54,55,56 Methanol inhalation studies using rhesus monkeys 

have reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy, and limited evidence of impaired learning 

ability in offspring.57,58,59,60 EPA has not classified methanol with respect to its carcinogenicity. 

Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds described above, other toxic compounds might be affected 

by these rules. Information regarding the health effects of those compounds can be found in 

EPA’s IRIS database.61

 

53 Rowe, VK and McCollister, SB. 1981. Alcohols. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 3rd ed. Vol. 2C, 

GD Clayton, FE Clayton, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 4528-4541. 54 New Energy Development Organization (NEDO). 1987. Toxicological research of methanol as a fuel for power 

station: summary report on tests with monkeys, rats and mice. Tokyo, Japan. 55 Nelson, BK; Brightwell, WS; MacKenzie, DR; Khan, A; Burg, JR; Weigel, WW; Goad, PT. 1985. Teratological 

assessment of methanol and ethanol at high inhalation levels in rats. Toxicol Sci, 5: 727-736. 56 Rogers, JM; Barbee, BD; Rehnberg, BF. 1993. Critical periods of sensitivity for the developmental toxicity of 

inhaled methanol. Teratology, 47: 395. 57 Burbacher, T; Grant, K; Shen, D; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 1999. Reproductive and offspring 

developmental effects following maternal inhalation exposure to methanol in nonhuman primates Part II: 

developmental effects in infants exposed prenatally to methanol. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA. 58 Burbacher, T; Shen, D; Grant, K; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 1999. Reproductive and offspring 

developmental effects following maternal inhalation exposure to methanol in nonhuman primates Part I: 

methanol disposition and reproductive toxicity in adult females. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA. 59 Burbacher, TM; Grant, KS; Shen, DD; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 2004. Chronic maternal 

methanol inhalation in nonhuman primates (Macaca fascicularis): reproductive performance and birth outcome. 

Neurotoxicol Teratol, 26: 639-650. 60 Burbacher, TM; Shen, DD; Lalovic, B; Grant, KS; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 2004. Chronic 

maternal methanol inhalation in nonhuman primates (Macaca fascicularis): exposure and toxicokinetics prior to 

and during pregnancy. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 26: 201-221. 61 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 

Field Code Changed
7-26 

7.2.2 Additional NO2 Co-Benefits 

In addition to being a precursor to PM2.5, NOx emissions are also associated with a 

variety of respiratory health effects. Unfortunately, we were unable to estimate the health 

benefits associated with reduced NO2 or ozone exposure in this analysis because we do not have 

air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes the 

PM2.5 benefits associated with the reductions in NO2 emissions. 

Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory 

studies, the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Dioxide concluded that there is a 

likely causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to NO2 

(U.S. EPA, 2008c). Persons with preexisting respiratory disease, children, and older adults may 

be more susceptible to the effects of NO2 exposure. Based on our review of this information, we 

identified four short-term morbidity endpoints that the NO2 ISA identified as a “likely causal 

relationship”: asthma exacerbation, respiratory-related emergency department visits, and 

respiratory-related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the 

evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the NO2 ISA. The NO2 ISA also 

concluded that the relationship between short-term NO2 exposure and premature mortality was 

“suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship” because it is difficult to attribute the 

mortality risk effects to NO2 alone. Although the NO2 ISA stated that studies consistently 

reported a relationship between NO2 exposure and mortality, the effect was generally smaller 

than that for other pollutants such as PM. 

NOx emissions also contribute to a variety of adverse welfare effects, including acidic 

deposition, visibility impairment, nutrient enrichment. Deposition of nitrogen causes 

acidification, which can cause a loss of biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and macro 

invertebrates in aquatic ecosystems, as well as a decline in sensitive tree species, such as red 

spruce (Picea rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) in terrestrial ecosystems. In the 

northeastern United States, the surface waters affected by acidification are a source of food for 

some recreational and subsistence fishermen and for other consumers and support several 

cultural services, including aesthetic and educational services and recreational fishing. Biological 

effects of acidification in terrestrial ecosystems are generally linked to aluminum toxicity, which 

can cause reduced root growth, which restricts the ability of the plant to take up water and 

nutrients. These direct effects can, in turn, increase the sensitivity of these plants to stresses, such 

as droughts, cold temperatures, insect pests, and disease leading to increased mortality of canopy 

trees. Terrestrial acidification affects several important ecological services, including declines in 

habitat for threatened and endangered species (cultural), declines in forest aesthetics (cultural), 
7-27 

declines in forest productivity (provisioning), and increases in forest soil erosion and reductions 

in water retention (cultural and regulating). (U.S. EPA, 2008d) 

Deposition of nitrogen is also associated with aquatic and terrestrial nutrient enrichment. 

In estuarine waters, excess nutrient enrichment can lead to eutrophication. Eutrophication of 

estuaries can disrupt an important source of food production, particularly fish and shellfish 

production, and a variety of cultural ecosystem services, including water-based recreational and 

aesthetic services. Terrestrial nutrient enrichment is associated with changes in the types and 

number of species and biodiversity in terrestrial systems. Excessive nitrogen deposition upsets 

the balance between native and nonnative plants, changing the ability of an area to support 

biodiversity. When the composition of species changes, then fire frequency and intensity can 

also change, as nonnative grasses fuel more frequent and more intense wildfires. (U.S. EPA, 

2008d) 

7.2.3 Ozone Co-Benefits 

In the presence of sunlight, NOx and VOCs can undergo a chemical reaction in the 

atmosphere to form ozone. Reducing ambient ozone concentrations is associated with 

significant human health benefits, including mortality and respiratory morbidity (U.S. EPA, 

2008a). Epidemiological researchers have associated ozone exposure with adverse health effects 

in numerous toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2006c). These health 

effects include respiratory morbidity such as fewer asthma attacks, hospital and ER visits, school 

loss days, as well as premature mortality. 

7.2.4 Carbon Monoxide Co-Benefits 

Carbon monoxide in ambient air is formed primarily by the incomplete combustion of 

carbon-containing fuels and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. The amount of CO emitted 

from these reactions, relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), is sensitive to conditions in the combustion 

zone, such as fuel oxygen content, burn temperature, or mixing time. Upon inhalation, CO diffuses 

through the respiratory system to the blood, which can cause hypoxia (reduced oxygen availability). 

Carbon monoxide can elicit a broad range of effects in multiple tissues and organ systems that are 

dependent upon concentration and duration of exposure. The Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide (U.S. EPA, 2010a) concluded that short-term exposure to CO is “likely to have a 

causal relationship” with cardiovascular morbidity, particularly in individuals with coronary heart 

disease. Epidemiologic studies associate short-term CO exposure with increased risk of emergency 

department visits and hospital admissions. Coronary heart disease includes those who have angina 

pectoris (cardiac chest pain), as well as those who have experienced a heart attack. Other 
7-28 

subpopulations potentially at risk include individuals with diseases such as chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease (COPD), anemia, or diabetes, and individuals in very early or late life stages, such 

as older adults or the developing young. The evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between 

short-term exposure to CO and respiratory morbidity and mortality. The evidence is also suggestive 

of a causal relationship for birth outcomes and developmental effects following long-term exposure 

to CO, and for central nervous system effects linked to short- and long-term exposure to CO.

7.2.5 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits 

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 would improve visibility throughout the U.S. 

Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Suspended particles and gases degrade 

visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Higher visibility impairment levels in the East are 

due to generally higher concentrations of fine particles, particularly sulfates, and higher average 

relative humidity levels. Visibility has direct significance to people’s enjoyment of daily 

activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where 

individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. Previous analyses 

(U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2011a; U.S. EPA, 2011b) show that visibility benefits are a 

significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate 

visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether VOC emission reductions would 

be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 

7.3 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized Co-Benefits 

In any complex analysis, there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. Many inputs 

are used to derive the final estimate of economic benefits, including emission inventories, air 

quality models (with their associated parameters and inputs), epidemiological estimates of 

concentration-response (C-R) functions, estimates of values, population estimates, income 

estimates, and estimates of the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human 

behavior). For some parameters or inputs it may be possible to provide a statistical 

representation of the underlying uncertainty distribution. For other parameters or inputs, the 

necessary information is not available. As discussed in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA (Table 5.5) (U.S. 

EPA, 2006), there are a variety of uncertainties associated with these PM benefits. Therefore, 

the estimates of annual benefits should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits 

expected, rather than the actual benefits that would occur every year. 

It is important to note that the monetized benefit-per-ton estimates used here reflect 

specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits 
7-29 

modeling assumptions. For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population 

density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors. Use of 

these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if 

benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in 

applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are 

all based on national or broad regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent 

average benefits-per-ton over the entire United States. The benefits-per-ton for emission 

reductions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here. For more 

information, see the TSD describing the calculation of the new benefit-per-ton estimates (U.S. 

EPA, 2012). 

PM2.5 mortality benefits are the largest benefit category that we monetized in this 

analysis. To better characterize the uncertainty associated with mortality impacts that are 

estimated to occur in areas with low baseline levels of PM2.5, we included the LML assessment. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations, thus we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with 

this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality 

impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the 

source apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. A 

very large proportion of the population is exposed at or above the lowest LML of the cohort 

studies (Figures 7-6 and 7-7), increasing our confidence in the PM mortality analysis. Figure 7-6 

shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air quality levels in the 

pre- and post-policy policy. Figure 7-7 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same 

data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. As the policy shifts 

the distribution of air quality levels, fewer people are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the 

LML. Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, the 77% of the population is exposed to annual mean 

PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m3

. Using the Laden et al. (2006) study, 25% of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

.

 As we model avoided premature deaths 

among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we have lower confidence in levels below the 

LML for each study. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related 

effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. Just because we have greater 

confidence in the benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we have no confidence that 

benefits occur below the LML. 

A large fraction of the baseline exposure occurs below the level of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for annual PM2.5 at 15 μg/m3

,which wasset in 2006. It is 
7-30 

important to emphasize that NAAQS are not set at a level of zero risk. Instead, the NAAQS 

reflect the level determined by the Administrator to be protective of public health within an 

adequate margin of safety, taking into consideration effects on susceptible populations. While 

benefits occurring below the standard may be less certain than those occurring above the 

standard, EPA considers them to be legitimate components of the total benefits estimate. 

Figure 7-6. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline 

 
7-31 

Figure 7-7. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 

Exposure in the Baseline 

Above we present the estimates of the total benefits, based on our interpretation of the 

best available scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB-HES and the NAS 

(NRC, 2002). The benefits estimates are subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties. 

For example, for key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality, which 

typically account for more than 90% of the total benefits, we were able to quantify include the 

following: 

1. PM2.5 benefits were derived through benefit per-ton estimates, which do not reflect 

local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health 

incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over-estimate or underestimate of the actual benefits of controlling PM precursors. We do not have data on 

the specific location of the air quality changes associated with this rulemaking; as 

such, it is not feasible to estimate the proportion of benefits occurring in different 

locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. In addition, the benefit-per-ton 

estimates are based on emissions from existing sources. To the extent that the 

geographic distribution of the emissions reductions for this rule are different than the 
7-32 

modeled emissions, the benefits may be underestimated or overestimated. In general, 

there is inherently more uncertainty for new sources, which may not be included in 

the emissions inventory, than existing sources. 

2. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, 

because PM2.5 produced via transported precursors emitted from EGUs may differ 

significantly from direct PM2.5 released from diesel engines and other industrial 

sources, but no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects 

estimates by particle type. 

3. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear down to the 

lowest air quality levels modeled in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health 

benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5,

including both regions that are in attainment with fine particle standard and those that 

do not meet the standard down to the lowest modeled concentrations. 

4. To characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality (which typically accounts for 85% to 95% of total monetized benefits), we 

include a set of twelve estimates based on results of the expert elicitation study in 

addition to our core estimates. Even these multiple characterizations omit the 

uncertainty in air quality estimates, baseline incidence rates, populations exposed and 

transferability of the effect estimate to diverse locations. As a result, the reported 

confidence intervals and range of estimates give an incomplete picture about the 

overall uncertainty in the PM2.5 estimates. This information should be interpreted 

within the context of the larger uncertainty surrounding the entire analysis. For more 

information on the uncertainties associated with PM2.5 benefits, please consult the 

PM2.5 NAAQS RIA (Table 5.5). 

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM 

NAAQS RIA because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the 

benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for this rule. 

Moreover, it was not possible to develop benefit-per-ton metrics and associated estimates of 

uncertainty using the benefits estimates from the PM RIA because of the significant differences 

between the sources affected in that rule and those regulated here. However, the results of the 

Monte Carlo analyses of the health and welfare benefits presented in Chapter 5 of the PM RIA 

can provide some evidence of the uncertainty surrounding the benefits results presented in this 

analysis. 
7-33 

7.4 Comparison of Co-Benefits and Costs 

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total combined monetized co-benefits of the 

reconsidered SI RICE NESHAP proposal to be $62 million to $150 million in the 

implementation year (2013). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized cobenefits of the final rule to be $55 million to $140 million. The annualized social costs of the 

reconsidered SI RICE NESHAP proposal are $115 million at a 7% interest rate.62 Thus, the net 

benefits are $-53 million to $35 million at a 3% discount rate and $-60 million to $ 25 million at 

a 7% discount rate. All estimates are in 2010$ for the year 2013. 

Table 7-5 shows a summary of the monetized co-benefits, social costs, and net benefits 

for the reconsidered SI RICE NESHAP proposal, respectively. Figures 7-8 and 7-9 show the full 

range of net benefits estimates (i.e., annual co-benefits minus annualized costs) utilizing the 14 

different PM2.5 mortality functions at discount rates of 3% and 7%. In addition, the benefits from 

reducing 22,000 tons of carbon monoxide and 1,800 tons of HAPs each year from SI RICE have 

not been included in these estimates. 

Table 7-5. Summary of the Annualized Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net 

Benefits for the Proposed SI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration in 2013 (millions of 2010$)1

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Total Monetized Benefits2 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance Costs3 $115 $115 

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-monetized Benefits 

Health effects from HAP exposure 

Health effects from CO, NO2, and ozone exposure 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

1

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

2

 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors such as NOx. Human health benefits are shown as a range from Pope et al. (2002) 

to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow 

differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated using benefit-per-ton 

estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components here. See Figure 7-1 for 

an illustration of the breakdown, or the RIA for the final Cross-States Air Pollution Rule (EPA, 2011) for more 

information. 

 

62 For more information on the annualized social costs, please refer to Section 5 of this RIA. 
7-34 

3 The annual compliance costs serve as a proxy for the annual social costs of this rule given the lack of difference 

between the two. The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate. 

 
7-35 

Figure 7-8. Net Benefits for Proposed SI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration at 3% 

discount rate* 

*Net Benefits are quantified in terms of PM2.5 at a 3% discount rate for 2013 and are in 2010$. This graph shows 14 

benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects. 

The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. 

‐$100

‐$80

‐$60

‐$40

‐$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions (2010$)

Cost estimate combined with total monetized benefits estimates derived from 2

epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions
7-36 

Figure 7-9. Net Benefits for Proposed SI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration at 7% 

discount rate* 

*Net Benefits are quantified in terms of PM2.5 benefits at a 7% discount rate at a 3% discount rate for 2013 and are 

in 2010$. This graph shows 14 benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. The monetized benefits 

incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. 

‐$100

‐$80

‐$60

‐$40

‐$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions (2010$)

Cost estimate combined with total monetized benefits estimates derived from 2

epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions
7-37 

7.5 References 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air Qual 

Atmos Health 2:169–176. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. Jan; 119(1): p. 125-30. 

Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. “An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining 

Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis.” 

Environmental and Resource Economics. 34: 385-406. 

Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow-up and 

spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and 

mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 

667-672. 

Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. 2002. “What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis.” 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(2):253-270. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of 

Energy Production and Use. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html. 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 

2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 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. 
7-38 

Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of 

the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA Report, 

ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado State University. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2007. SAB 

Advisory on EPA’s Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. October. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$File/

sab-08-001.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009a. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/73

ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope 

and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-009. 

May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/72

3FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA-COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/72D4EFA39E48CDB28525774500738776/$F

ile/EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2002. 

Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an 

EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-

001. July. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>. 
7-39 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. December. 

Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. April. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available at 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: 

Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response 

Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available on the 

Internet at <www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf>. 
7-40 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. June. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Technical Support Document: 

Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from Other Non-EGU Point 

Sources Sector. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

February. 

Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of 

Market Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1):5-76. 
8-1 

Section 8

REFERENCES FOR RIA 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines, June 2, 2009, Case Study (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0186). 

Edison Electric Institute. “Income Statement: Q4 2008 Financial Update. Quarterly Report of the 

U.S. Shareholder-Owned Electric Utility Industry.” <http://www.eei.org>. 

Email from Nick Huff, Miratech to Jennifer Synder, AGTI, SCR Questions for RICE MACT, 

October 23, 2003 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0038). 

Email from Mike Leonard, Miratech to Brad Nelson, AGTI, Information Request, July 21, 2005 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0087). 

Email from Bruce Chrisman, Cameron's Compression Systems to Tanya Parise, EC/R, Subject: 

Existing RICE NESHAP - Information for EPA for 2SLB Engines, October 16, 2009. 

Email from James Harrison, Exterran to Melanie King, EPA, Subject: 2SLB - Cameron 

oxidation catalyst pricing, October 20, 2009. 

Email from Mike Leonard, Miratech Corporation to Brenda Riddle, AGTI, RE: Clarification of 

SCR Cost Information for EPA, July 20, 2005. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0086). 

Email from Antonio Santos, MECA to Tanya Parise, EC/R, Subject: EPA Proposed Existing 

RICE NESHAP - Cost of Aftertreatment, October 2, 2009. Response #2. 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of location, source, and emission type 

in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health 2:169-176. 

Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial Production” 

Series ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G2211.S 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. (January 27, 2010). 

Four Corners Air Quality Task Force Report of Mitigation Options, November 1, 2007. 

Mitigation Option: Use of NSCR/3-Way Catalysts and Air/Fuel Ratio Controllers on 

Rich Burn Stoichiometric Engines (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0009). 

Fullerton, D., and G. Metcalf. 2002. “Tax Incidence.” In A. Auerbach and M. Feldstein, eds., 

Handbook of Public Economics, Vol.4, Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data 

Files 2004-2007.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 

2010). 
8-2 

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission. 2007. “Marginal Wells: Fuel for Economic Growth.” 

Table 3.B. <http://iogcc.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/2007-marginalwell-report-2007>. 

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). 2008. “Marginal Wells: Fuel for Economic 

Growth.” Available at < http://iogcc.publishpath.com/Websites/iogcc/pdfs/2008-

Marginal-Well-Report.pdf>. 

Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. “An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining 

Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis.” 

Environmental and Resource Economics 34:385-406. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate 

Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine 173:667-672. 

Lincoln Electric Holdings. 2006. Form 10-K. Filed February 24, 2006. 

Memorandum from Tom McGrath, IES to Brad Nelson, EC/R, Request for Additional Cost 

Detail for Gas-Fired Engines Emission Controls, April 19, 2010. 

Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. 2002. “What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis.” 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(2):253-270. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Nelson, B., EC/R Inc.. June 29, 2010. Memorandum to Melanie King, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.Control Costs for Existing Stationary SI RICE. 

Nicholson, Walter. 1998. Microeconomic Theory. Orlando: The Dryden Press. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the internet at 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html>. 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 

2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

Price quote from Charles Ball, Emissions & Silencer Technology for an oxidation catalyst for a 

500 HP 4SLB engine. 

Roman, H.A., K.D. Walker, T.L. Walsh, L. Conner, H.M. Richmond, .J. Hubbell, and P.L. 

Kinney. 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. 
8-3 

Technical Report: RICE NESHAP Control Costs Background for "Above the Floor Analysis", 

October 2009, Attachment N (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0279). 

Technical Report: RICE NESHAP Control Costs Background for "Above the Floor Analysis", 

October 2009, Attachment D (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0279). 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed 

Make Table, Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010. Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product. Last Revised June 25, 2010. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. All 

Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2002.” 

http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb02.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail 

Employment Sizes: 2002. 

http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2002/02us_detailed%20sizes_6digitnaics.txt. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, U.S. All 

Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2002. 

http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2002/usalli_r02.xls. 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: 

Mining: Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and 1997.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 26, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: 

EC0721I1: Mining: Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United States: 

2007 ” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (April 27, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: 

Mining: Geographic Area Series: Industry Statistics for the State or Offshore Areas: 

2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 27, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: 

Utilities: Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: 

Utilities: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by Largest Firms for the 

United States: 2002.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; American FactFinder; “Sector 22: EC0722I2: Utilities: Industry Series: 

Preliminary Comparative Statistics for the United States (2002 NAICS Basis): 2007 and 

2002.” 
8-4 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 23: 

Geographic Distribution—Construction: 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov> 

(January 27, 2010). 

 U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 31: 

EC0731I1: Manufacturing: Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United 

States: 2007” 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 31: 

Manufacturing: Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and Earlier 

Years” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 25, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Comparative Statistics for the United 

States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(December 12, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by 

Largest Firms for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 

2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Summary Statistics for the United 

States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 27, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

EC0748I1: Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Preliminary Summary 

Statistics for the United States: 2007.” http://factfinder.census.gov (January 27, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Geographic Distribution—Pipeline transportation of natural gas: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of 

Organization for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 

2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: 

Health Care and Social Assistance: Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: 

Health Care and Social Assistance: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of 

Organization for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 

2008). 
8-5 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: 

Health Care and Social Assistance: Geographic Area Series: 2002 and 2007.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 27, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. 2002 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 3, Finances of 

County Governments: 2002 GC02(4)-3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

DC. Table 12. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. 2002 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 4, Finances of 

Municipal and Township Governments: 2002 GC02(4)-4. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC. Table 13. 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 00: All 

sectors: Geographic Area Series: Economy-Wide Key Statistics: 2007” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (July 7, 2010). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. “2008 Farm and 

Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Table 1. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. “2008 Farm and 

Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Table 20. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2008. 

“2008 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Table 34. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. “Agricultural Projections to 2017.” 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE081/OCE20081c.pdf>. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. “2006 EIA-906/920 

Monthly Time Series.” 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. “State Electricity Profiles 

2008.” DOE/EIA-0348(01)/2. p. 260. < 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2008.pdf>. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2008a. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ 

restructuring/restructure_elect.html>. Last updated September 2008. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010. Table 2. Available at: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). May 2004. Final Regulatory Analysis: 

Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-04-007. Washington, 

DC: EPA. < http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007.pdf>. 
8-6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 

Proposed PM NAAQS Rule: Response Surface Modeling. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/pmnaaqs_tsd_rsm_all_021606.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006c. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA. February. Available at at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses: External Review Draft. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office 

of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0516-01.pdf/$File/EE-0516-

01.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. 

December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. April. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >. 
8-7 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009c. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. June. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/> 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. EPA/600/R-09/019F. January. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. Available at < 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Summary of Expert Opinoins on the 

Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related 

Mortality: Technical Support Document. Compiled by Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010d. Lowest Measured Level (LML) 

Assessment for Rules without Policy-Specific Air Quality Data Available: Technical 

Support Document. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010f. Air Quality Modeling Technical 

Support Document: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R-10-001. February. Available at at 

<http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/454r10001.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004. 

Advisory on Plans for Health Effects Analysis in the Analytical Plan for EPA’s Second 

Prospective Analysis – Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020. Advisory by 

the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance 

Analysis. EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-04-002. March. Available at at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/08E1155AD24F871C85256E540

0433D5D/$File/council_adv_04002.pdf>. 
8-8 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2007. SAB 

Advisory on EPA’s Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. 

October. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$F

ile/sab-08-001.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009a. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-

unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 

Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-

009. May. Available at at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2008. “Table of Small Business Size Standards 

Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.” Effective August 22, 

2008. <http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ 

tablepdf.pdf>. 

Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market 

Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1):5-76. 

Wade, S.H. 2003. “Price Responsiveness in the AEO2003 NEMS Residential and Commercial 

Buildings Sector Models.” 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/elasticity/pdf/buildings.pdf>. 
B-9 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE; NSPS For Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines 2060-AQ58 Proposal 20120410 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-XXXX-Y] 

RIN 2060-AQ58 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. The proposed amendments include alternative 

testing options for certain large spark ignition (generally 

natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark 

ignition stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines in 

sparsely populated areas and alternative monitoring and 

compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The 
Page 2 of 197 

EPA is also proposing to include a limited temporary allowance 

for existing stationary emergency area source engines to be used 

for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response. In addition, 

the EPA is proposing to increase the hours that stationary 

emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The 

proposed amendments also correct minor mistakes in the preexisting regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

DATE 45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 30 

days after date of public meeting if later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 

public meeting by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public meeting will be held on 

[INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If you are interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify 

that a meeting will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, by one of the following methods: 

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

 Fax: (202) 566-1741. 

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 

Comment [A1]: Did EPA consider 60 days? 

Why was 45 days chosen? 
Page 3 of 197 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please 

include a total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

 Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going 
Page 4 of 197 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is held, it will be held at 

the EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC or an alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies on documents in 

Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0030, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, and incorporated 

those dockets into the record for this action. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in 
Page 5 of 197 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy 

Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-

01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile 

number (919) 541-5450; email address king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 

the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions 

G. Compliance Date 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 
Page 6 of 197 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts? 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This proposal was developed to address certain issues that have 

been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, several 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments 

and other communications. This proposal also provides 

clarifications and corrects minor mistakes in the current RICE 

NESHAP and revises the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
Page 7 of 197 

for stationary engines, 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

for consistency with the RICE NESHAP. 

This action is conducted under the authority of section 112 

of the CAA, “Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (HAP) which requires the 

EPA to establish NESHAP for the control of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing sources in regulated 

source categories. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments, the 

EPA received several petitions for reconsideration, legal 

challenges, and other communications raising issues of practical 

implementability, and certain factual information that had not 

been brought to the EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The 

EPA has considered this information and believes that amendments 

to the rule to address certain of these issues are appropriate. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, NESHAP for Stationary RICE. The current regulation applies 

to owners and operators of existing and new stationary RICE at 

major and area sources of HAP emissions. The applicability of 

the rule remains the same and is not changed by this proposal. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

engines to conform with certain of the amendments proposed for 

the NESHAP. 
Page 8 of 197 

The EPA proposes to add an alternative compliance 

demonstration option for stationary 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB) 

spark ignition (SI) engines subject to a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction. Owners and operators of 4SRB engines 

would be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the 76 percent 

formaldehyde reduction emission standard by testing total 

hydrocarbon (THC) emissions and showing that the engine is 

achieving at least a 30 percent reduction of THC emissions. The 

alternative compliance option would provide a less expensive and 

less complex, but equally effective, method for demonstrating 

compliance than testing for formaldehyde. 

Certain stationary RICE are maintained in order to be able 

to respond to emergency power needs. The EPA proposes to allow 

owners and operators of such stationary emergency RICE to 

operate their engines as part of an emergency demand response 

program within the 100 hours per year that is already permitted 

for maintenance and testing of the engines. The 100 hours per 

year allowance would ensure that a sufficient number of hours 

are permitted for engines to meet independent system operator 

(ISO) and regional transmission organization (RTO) tariffs and 

other requirements for participating in various emergency demand 

response programs and would assist in stabilizing the grid, 

preventing electrical blackouts and supporting local electric 

system reliability. A temporary limited allowance that will 

Comment [A2]: How long does maintenance and 

testing taking? Is this responsiveto the petition? 
Page 9 of 197 

expire on April 16, 2017, is being proposed for stationary 

emergency engines located at area sources of HAP emissions to be 

used for up to 50 hours per year for any non-emergency purpose, 

including peak shaving. The 50 hours is part of the 100 hours 

per year total allowance for all types of emergency engine 

operation (except during emergencies where no other power is 

available, which is not restricted by the rule). The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources time to address 

reliability issues and develop solutions to reliability issues 

while facilities are coming into compliance with the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and 

Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, which were 

promulgated on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). 

 The EPA proposes management practices for owners and 

operators of existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 500 

horsepower (HP) that are area sources of HAP emissions and where 

the engines are remote from human activity. A remote area is 

defined as either a Department of Transportation (DOT) Class 1 

pipeline location1

, or, if the facility is not on a pipeline, if 

within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility there are 5 or less 

buildings intended for human occupancy. The EPA proposes that 

these sources be subject to management practices rather than 

 

1

 A Class 1 location is defined as an offshore area or any class 

location unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

Comment [A3]: How was this chosen? 

Comment [A4]: How was this chosen? 
Page 10 of 197 

emissions standards and associated testing and monitoring. This 

would address reasonable concerns with accessibility, 

infrastructure, and staffing that stem from the remoteness of 

the engines and higher costs that would be associated with 

compliance with the existing requirements. The EPA proposes that 

existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 500 HP at area 

sources that are in populated areas (defined as DOT pipeline 

Class 2 through Class 4 areas, or if not on a pipeline, if 

within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility there are more than 5 

buildings intended for human occupancy) be subject to an 

equipment standard that requires the installation of HAPreducing aftertreatment. Sources would be required to test their 

engines to demonstrate compliance initially, perform catalyst 

activity check-ups, and either monitor the catalyst inlet 

temperature continuously or employ high temperature shutdown 

devices to protect the catalyst. 

To address how certain existing compression ignition (CI) 

engines are currently regulated, the EPA proposes to specify 

that any existing certified CI engine above 300 HP at an area 

source of HAP emissions that was certified to meet the Tier 3 

engine standards and was installed before June 12, 2006, is in 

compliance with the NESHAP. This provision would create 

regulatory consistency between the same engines installed before 

and after June 12, 2006. 

Deleted: aftertreatment-forcing 

Comment [A5]: This phrase seems awkward. 

Comment [A6]: Do you mean emissions? Under 

the statute, you can set emissions standards or work 

practice standards, not technology standards, right? 

Comment [A7]: What is the significance of this 

date? 
Page 11 of 197 

The EPA is proposing amendments to the requirements for 

existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject to state and locally 

enforceable requirements requiring replacement of the engine by 

January 1, 2018. This is meant to deal with a specific concern 

regarding the interaction of the NESHAP with certain rules for 

agricultural engines in the San Joaquin Valley in California. 

The EPA is proposing to allow these engines to meet management 

practices under the RICE NESHAP for a period of 2 years until 

May 3, 2015. This provision would deal with the issue of owners 

and operators having to install controls on their engines in 

order to meet the RICE NESHAP, and then having to replace their 

engines shortly thereafter due to state and local rules 

specifying the replacement of engines. Owners and operators will 

have two additional years to replace their engines without 

having to install controls, but will be required to use 

management practices during that period. 

The last major change the EPA proposes to make is to 

broaden the definition of remote area sources of Alaska in the 

RICE NESHAP. Currently, remote areas are those that are not on 

the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). This change would permit 

existing stationary CI engines at other remote area sources in 

Alaska to meet management practices as opposed to emission 

standards likely necessitating aftertreatment. These remote 
Page 12 of 197 

areas have the same challenges as areas not on the FAHS, and 

complying with the current rule would similarly be prohibitively 

costly and potentially infeasible. In addition to area sources 

located in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS 

being defined as remote and subject to management practices, the 

EPA also proposes that any stationary RICE in Alaska meeting all 

of the following conditions be subject to management practices: 

 (1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid, and 

(2) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes, and 

(3) The generating capacity of the area source is less than 

12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 hrs 

per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

 These proposed amendments would reduce the capital and 

annual costs of the original 2010 amendments by $287 million and 

$139 million, respectively. The EPA estimates that with the 
Page 13 of 197 

proposed amendments, the capital cost of the rule is $840 

million and the annual cost is $490 million ($2010). 

These proposed amendments would also result in decreases to 

the emissions reductions estimated in 2013 from the original 

2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The estimated reductions in 2013 

from the 2010 RICE NESHAP rulemaking with these proposed 

amendments are 2,800 tons per year (tpy) of HAP, 36,000 tpy of 

carbon monoxide (CO), 2,800 tpy of particulate matter (PM), 

9,600 tpy of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and 36,000 tpy of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). 

The EPA estimates the monetized co-benefits in 2013 of the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments with these proposed 

amendments incorporated to be $830 million to $2,100 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $740 million to 

$1,800 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. 

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry 

using a 

stationary 

internal 

combustion engine 

as defined in the 

proposed 

amendments. 

2211 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. 

Comment [A8]: Please include information on 

size of change (in absolute or percent) relative to 

previous rule. 

Comment [A9]: Please include information on 

size of change (in absolute or percent) relative to 

previous rule. 
Page 14 of 197 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 

a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by 

this action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of 

this proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 

through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all 

of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 

in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. 
Page 15 of 197 

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. The EPA may ask you to respond to 

specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

 (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your requested changes. 

 (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used. 

 (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 

you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for 

it to be reproduced. 

 (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, 

and suggest alternatives. 

 (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 

use of profanity or personal threats. 

 (h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 
Page 16 of 197 

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 Website (TTN 

Web). Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of this 

proposed rule on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

 This action proposes amendments to the NESHAP for RICE in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. This action also proposes 

amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ. The NESHAP for stationary RICE to 

regulate emissions of HAP was developed in several stages. The 

EPA initially addressed stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources of HAP emissions in 2004 (69 FR 33473). 

The EPA addressed new stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources and new stationary RICE located at 

area sources in 2008 (73 FR 3568). Most recently, requirements 

for existing stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and existing stationary RICE located at 
Page 17 of 197 

area sources were finalized in 2010 (75 FR 9648 and 75 FR 

51570). 

 The EPA is proposing to address a number of issues that 

have been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, 

several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments, and other communications. The EPA is also proposing 

to revise 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP and to make minor corrections and 

clarifications. The following sections present the issues that 

the EPA is addressing in this action, background information as 

to why these issues are causing concern among affected 

stakeholders, and how the EPA proposes to resolve the issues. 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option

1. Background 

 Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 

HP located at major sources and existing SI 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at area sources have the 

option of meeting either a formaldehyde percent reduction or a 

formaldehyde concentration standard. Formaldehyde was 

established in the original 2004 RICE NESHAP as an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB engines based on industry 

test data available at that time. Based on testing of stationary 

lean burn engines conducted at Colorado State University (CSU), 

the EPA was able to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP for lean 
Page 18 of 197 

burn engines. Rich burn engines were not tested at CSU and the 

data the EPA had available at the time that were used to set the 

standards for rich burn engines did not support the same 

relationship between CO and HAP reductions for rich burn 

engines. Therefore, the EPA was unable to establish CO as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions for rich burn engines and the 

emission standard for rich burn engines was specified in terms 

of formaldehyde, the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the 

largest quantity from stationary engines. 

 The EPA has previously acknowledged that it is 

significantly more expensive and difficult to test for 

formaldehyde than for CO, but has been unable in the past to 

support the same flexibility for rich burn engines as is 

currently in the rule for lean burn engines with the option to 

meet the standards in terms of either formaldehyde or CO. For 

these reasons, and expecting that new data for rich burn engines 

may become available in the future for the EPA to review and 

reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the EPA requested comment 

on this issue when proposing NESHAP for stationary existing 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources and all 

stationary existing engines at area sources in 2009 (74 FR 

9698). Specifically, the EPA solicited comment on whether it 

would be appropriate to include an alternative standard in terms 

of VOC and asked that commenters submit data supporting the 

Deleted: including 
Page 19 of 197 

relationship between HAP and VOC. Comments the EPA received back 

on the proposed rule asked that the formaldehyde standards for 

rich burn engines be replaced with emission standards for THC. 

The EPA determined at the time that it was not appropriate to 

adopt an alternative standard in terms of THC (or VOC) for rich 

burn engines and discussed the reasons why in the 2010 responses 

to comments.2

 Compliance with the formaldehyde standard in the 

rule is, therefore, currently demonstrated by initial and 

continuous performance testing for formaldehyde. 

 On October 19, 2010, engine manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted a petition for reconsideration of the formaldehyde 

requirements. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration 

on January 5, 2011. (In addition, on November 3, 2010, the 

Engine Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for 

judicial review of these requirements.) In the petition for 

reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha argued that formaldehyde is 

difficult and costly to measure. The petition requested that the 

HAP surrogate for 4SRB engines should be THC rather than 

formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha submitted data from testing it 

 

2

 Memorandum from Melanie King, EPA Energy Strategies Group to 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines Located at Area Sources of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less Than or Equal to 

500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions. August 10, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0557. 
Page 20 of 197 

conducted illustrating that THC reduction across the catalyst is 

an appropriate surrogate for HAP reduction across the catalyst.3

According to the petitioner, testing for THC is easier and less 

costly and would substantially reduce the burden of the rule for 

owners and operators of these engines. Testing for formaldehyde 

emissions could cost more than double that of testing for THC 

emissions and on a nationwide basis the EPA estimates that 

replacing formaldehyde testing with THC testing would result in 

substantial compliance cost savings annually while achieving the 

same reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data submitted by DresserWaukesha. The data provided indicate that a strong relationship 

exists between percentage reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the surrogate for HAP emissions in 

the NESHAP) on rich burn engines using non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA indicate that if the 

NSCR is reducing THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB engines, 

formaldehyde emissions are guaranteed to be reduced by at least 

76 percent, which is the percentage reduction required for the 

relevant engines. Indeed, the percentage reduction of 

formaldehyde is invariably well above the 76 percent level, and 

is usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the EPA agrees with the 

 

3

Letter from Dresser-Waukesha to Melanie King. Follow-up to 

November 18, 2010 Teleconference. December 6, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0662. 
Page 21 of 197 

petitioner that for SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and meeting the 

NESHAP by showing a percentage reduction of HAP, it would be 

appropriate to allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the 

NESHAP by showing a THC reduction of at least 30 percent. 

Including an optional THC compliance demonstration option would 

reduce the cost of compliance significantly while continuing to 

achieve the same level of HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the same. Consequently, the EPA 

is proposing amendments to allow owners and operators of certain 

stationary 4SRB engines (i.e., the ones currently subject to a 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement) to show compliance 

with an optional THC compliance demonstration option. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are presented below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to add an alternative method of 

demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP for stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for existing stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

area sources of HAP emissions that choose to meet the 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement of 76 percent or 

more. 

 Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the 

petition discussed above, the EPA is proposing to add a 
Page 22 of 197 

compliance demonstration option for stationary 4SRB engines 

meeting a 76 percent or more formaldehyde reduction. The 

compliance demonstration option would be an alternative to the 

existing method of demonstrating compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction standard, which is to test 

engines for formaldehyde. The alternative for owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines meeting a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction would be to test their engines for THC 

showing that the engine is achieving at least a 30 percent 

reduction of THC emissions. 

 Under the proposed amendments, existing and new stationary 

4SRB engines greater than 500 HP and located at major sources 

would still be required to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more or limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 parts per billion by volume, 

dry basis or less at 15 percent oxygen (O2). However, owners and 

operators choosing to meet the formaldehyde concentration limit 

would not have the THC demonstration compliance option, because 

EPA could not verify a clear relationship between concentrations 

of THC and concentrations of formaldehyde in exhaust from these 

SI 4SRB engines. For the reasons discussed in section II.C.1 of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing that existing stationary 

4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources located in populated areas be subject to an equipment 
Page 23 of 197 

standard and required to install a catalyst. These engines would 

be subject to testing to demonstrate initially and on an ongoing 

basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively that THC emissions are being reduced by 30 percent 

or more. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SRB engines 

less than or equal to 500 HP who are required to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

10.3 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 

15 percent O2 do not have the option to demonstrate compliance 

using THC and must continue to demonstrate compliance by testing 

for formaldehyde following the methods and procedures specified 

in the rule. 

 Owners and operators opting to use the THC compliance 

demonstration method must demonstrate compliance by showing that 

the average reduction of THC is equal to or greater than 30 

percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and 

demonstrating compliance by using the THC compliance 

demonstration option must conduct performance testing using 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A – Determination of 

Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 

Analyzer. Measurements of THC at the inlet and the outlet of the 

NSCR must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent O2 or 
Page 24 of 197 

equivalent carbon dioxide content. To correct to 15 percent O2, 

dry basis, owners and operators must measure oxygen using Method 

3, 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM Method D6522-

00 (2005) and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. Because owners and operators are complying with a 

percent reduction requirement, the method used must be suitable 

for the entire range of emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 25A is capable of measuring 

emissions down to 5 ppmv and is, therefore, an appropriate 

method for measuring THC emissions for compliance demonstration 

purposes. The EPA is allowing sources the option to meet a 

minimum THC percent reduction of 30 percent by using Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to demonstrate compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

1. Background 

 This action also proposes to amend provisions in the RICE 

NESHAP that currently allow owners and operators to operate 

stationary emergency engines for up to 15 hours per year as part 

of a demand response program if the RTO or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator have determined there are 

emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical 

blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, 
Page 25 of 197 

capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. 

The final rule did not allow emergency engines to be used for 

purposes of peak shaving or other non-emergency purposes as part 

of a financial arrangement. These provisions were included in 

the RICE NESHAP when requirements for existing stationary CI 

engines were finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648). Following 

the completion of that portion of the rule, the EPA received 

three main petitions for reconsideration. One petition was from 

CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC. (EnerNOC et al.)(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-

0404). Another petition was received from the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE 

DNREC) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0400). The third petition was from 

the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 

(OAR-2008-0708-0580). In addition to these main petitions the 

EPA received a substantial number of letters from others in the 

electric generation industry. 

 The petition from EnerNOC, et al., asked that EPA increase 

the period of time permitted for emergency demand response 

operation in the rule to 60 hours per year, or the minimum 

number of hours required by the emergency demand response 

program. By contrast, the DE DNREC petition asked EPA to 

reconsider the emergency demand response provision because of 

the adverse effects that it believes would result from increased 
Page 26 of 197 

emissions from these engines. The petition from NRECA requested 

that the EPA eliminate the restriction on the use of stationary 

emergency engines for demand response purposes. The EPA granted 

the petitions from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and NRECA, and 

issued a notice on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75937), requesting 

comments on whether to amend the 15 hours per year limitation on 

the operation of stationary emergency RICE participating in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 comments from a number of 

different entities including various state agencies, utilities, 

electric cooperatives and industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per year is not sufficient to 

meet current emergency demand response requirements for 

participation. For example, several emergency demand response 

programs have ISO tariff requirements greater than 15 hours per 

year, including the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

emergency demand response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the Pennsylvania Jersey 

Maryland (“PJM”) Interconnection, known as the Emergency Load 

Response Program, which has a tariff requirement of 60 hours per 

year; and the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”), which forecasts that 

backup resources would be expected for 55 hours over a 12-month 

period. Tariff requirements are developed to specify the 

mandatory time load resources (engines) must be willing and able 
Page 27 of 197 

to operate if the units are enrolled in the program. Conversely, 

some commenters urged the EPA to allow stationary emergency 

engines to only operate during true emergencies or when voltage 

or frequency varies beyond specified parameters. 

 Based on the EPA’s review of the petitions and comments 

that the EPA has received, the EPA has found it appropriate to 

propose to amend the current rule to increase the allowance for 

stationary emergency engine participation in emergency demand 

response programs to up to 100 hours per year, which would be 

included as part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 hours for 

owners of emergency engines to test and maintain their emergency 

engines. The EPA believes that the emergency demand response 

programs that exist across the country are important programs 

that protect the reliability and stability of the national 

electric service grid. Allowing stationary emergency engines to 

operate as part of emergency demand response programs can help 

prevent grid failure or blackouts, by allowing these engines to 

be used in circumstances of grid instability prior to the 

occurrence of blackouts. Preventing stationary emergency engines 

from being able to qualify and participate in emergency demand 

response programs without having to apply aftertreatment could 

force owners and operators to leave their engines out of these 

programs, which will impair the ability of ISOs and RTOs to use 

these relatively small, quick-starting and reliable sources of 
Page 28 of 197 

energy to protect the reliability of their systems. The EPA does 

not wish to potentially jeopardize electrical reliability or 

create a disincentive for stationary emergency engines to 

participate in these programs. The circumstances during which 

the EPA would allow stationary emergency engines to operate for 

emergency demand response purposes include periods during which 

the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard 

EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA Level 2 

alerts there is insufficient energy supply and a true potential 

for electrical blackouts. System operators must call on all 

available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts in order to 

stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation 

is a good indicator of severe instability on the system. 

Consistent normal voltage provided by the utility is often 

called power quality and is an important factor in local 

electric system reliability. Reliability of the system requires 

electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The 

American National Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 

defines the maximum allowable voltage sag at below 5 percent. On 
Page 29 of 197 

the local distribution level local voltage levels are therefore 

important and a 5 percent or more change in the normal voltage 

or frequency is substantial and an indication that additional 

resources are needed to ensure local distribution system 

reliability. This situation would be indicative of severe 

instability on the system. 

Emergency demand response programs rely on agreements under 

which owners of engine agree to make their engines available to 

be called upon for a specific number of hours per year, as 

required by the relevant ISO or RTO tariff, under specified 

circumstances considered to indicate emergencies. In order to be 

enrolled in an emergency demand response program, participants 

must qualify their engines and must be able to use their 

emergency engines for the number of hours the program requires. 

Engines are not generally called upon for the maximum hours 

required by the tariffs. However, even though the engine may not 

be called at all or may run for fewer hours than the program 

requires it to be available in a particular year, the engine 

must still be available for those theoretical number of hours in 

order to join the program. Demand response contracts require 

more hours than the 15 hours per year that is currently in the 

regulations, and the commenters state that the 15 hours per year 

is not a sufficient amount of time to ensure the reliability of 

the program; some programs require up to 60 hours per year, as 
Page 30 of 197 

discussed earlier in this preamble. For these reasons, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to allow additional hours for 

emergency demand response operation in order for such programs 

to be accessible to stationary emergency engines. Consequently, 

the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule to increase the 

limitation on emergency demand response operation to 100 hours 

per year for stationary emergency engines. It is expected that 

owners and operators of stationary emergency engines that seek 

to qualify their units as demand resources would with the 

proposed increase to 100 hours per year be able to meet the 

operational and qualification requirements of the different ISOs 

and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency engines that participate in 

demand response programs may not be called upon at all, but must 

nonetheless be available to operate for the required amount 

stipulated by the specific program. The purpose of the limited 

allowance for emergency demand response is to respond to 

emergencies, and the EPA is persuaded by the information that 

has been submitted that 15 hours per year is an insufficient 

amount of time to allow for emergency demand response needs, 

given past experience. The EPA believes 100 hours per year is 

sufficient to cover any potential demand response operation as 

well as the required maintenance and testing that is also 

included within the 100 hours of operation. 
Page 31 of 197 

The EPA has previously determined that stationary emergency 

engines typically operate well below 50 hours per year and more 

commonly about 1 to 2 hours per month. A survey conducted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicated the average 

yearly operation for emergency diesel engines was 31 hours over 

a period of 3 years. The majority of those hours were for the 

purpose of maintenance and testing; less than 5 hours was for 

interruptible service contracts, and the remaining amount for 

emergency/standby operation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011). Data 

from demand response programs in ISO-NE and PJM territories show 

that backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours 

during the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.4

 

However, again, emergency units must be available to 

operate more than that in most cases to qualify for demand 

response programs. For instance, PJM requires a minimum ISO 

tariff of 60 hours per year of engine availability for program 

participation. Consequently, in order to ensure that a 

sufficient amount of operating time is available for maintenance 

and readiness testing, and for demand response operation, the 

EPA is proposing 100 hours of operation. A number of commenters 

requested that an allowance of 100 hours per year be allowed in 

order to provide adequate hours consistent with minimum required 

 

4

 Memorandum from Stacy Angel, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to 

Doug Hurley, Synapse Energy Economics. Sample Revenue for a 1 MW 

Backup Generation Unit. June 27, 2011. 
Page 32 of 197 

hours that customers must be available to operate and to address 

local distribution system emergencies. For instance, in Hawaii, 

the emergency demand response program operated by the Hawaiian 

Electric Company requires that emergency engines be able to 

operate for 100 hours per year in the event of an emergency in 

order to participate in the program. In order to provide a 

sufficient amount of time to cover annual maintenance and 

testing, which is typically more than 20 hours per year 

according to the survey conducted by CARB (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0029-0011), plus to cover hours necessary for qualifying for 

emergency demand response programs or local distribution system 

emergencies, EPA believes an allowance of 100 hours per year 

would be appropriate for these activities. Taking into account 

that there may be situations where annual maintenance and 

testing could exceed the typical 1 to 2 hours per month and 

accounting for other emergency demand response programs that 

require more than 60 hours per year for program participation 

(e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), the EPA believes that 100 

hours per year is appropriate for emergency demand response plus 

maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule would mean that 

stationary emergency engines could operate for a total of 100 

hours per year for emergency demand response operation as part 

of the 100 hours already permitted for maintenance and readiness 
Page 33 of 197 

testing while maintaining their status as emergency units, 

rather than non-emergency units, and continue to meet the 

requirements that apply to emergency engines. 

 On the issue of peak shaving and non-emergency demand 

response, the EPA is proposing to include a temporary limited 

allowance for peak shaving and other types of non-emergency use 

as part of a financial arrangement for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources of HAP, if the peak shaving is 

done as part of a peak shaving (or load management) program with 

the local distribution system operator. The power generated 

under this allowance can only be used at the facility or towards 

the local system. 

 The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to include 

the option for existing stationary emergency engines at area 

sources to operate for a small number (50) of hours per year for 

any non-emergency reason and not be penalized or considered a 

non-emergency engine and subsequently required to install 

aftertreatment that could be prohibitively costly for these 

sources in the near term. The EPA is proposing that the 50-hour 

allowance for peak shaving for emergency engines at area sources 

be allowed for a limited period of time, but then removed after 

April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would also be limited to 

operation as part of a peak shaving (load management program) 

with the local distribution system operator. Owners would still 
Page 34 of 197 

have the pre-existing 50 hours per year allowance for nonemergency operation after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours 

could no longer be used for peak shaving. The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources an additional 

resource for maintaining reliability while facilities are coming 

into compliance with the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). While the EPA does 

not expect the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units to cause regional reliability problems, 

this limited allowance would allow the owners and operators of 

these engines more flexibility to run reliability critical units 

in order to minimize potential grid-related interruptions as 

coal- and oil-fired baseload power plants may be temporarily 

shut down to install emission controls to comply with the NESHAP 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

 Including this allowance is important for small electric 

cooperatives and other entities located at area sources that use 

these engines to maintain voltage and electric reliability. Many 

rural electric cooperatives enter agreements with owners of 

small emergency engines and rely on the engines to reduce demand 

on the central power supply during periods of high demand, which 

reduces the cost of power during periods of high demand for the 

members of the cooperative. Commenters promoting the continued 

use of peak shaving programs said that maintaining the cost of 
Page 35 of 197 

power as low as possible is important across the country, but is 

particularly of significant importance to rural electric 

cooperatives that, according to the commenter, service customers 

in the most economically depressed areas of the country, where 

options are the most limited. The commenters argued that if 

small emergency engines would no longer be permitted to operate 

for peak shaving purposes without having to be reclassified as 

non-emergency engines and subsequently subject to costly 

emissions controls, owners could no longer afford to participate 

in such programs. Cooperatives argued that this would lead to 

increased costs that would ultimately be passed along to the 

customers. Commenters also maintained that keeping peak shaving 

programs would not lead to additional public health risks or 

emissions because the operation for peak shaving is minimal. If 

peak shaving is not allowed under the rule, commenters said that 

this would lead to an increase in central power station capacity 

and possibly more transmission and distribution line capacity to 

accommodate the increase in demand resulting from eliminating 

small emergency engines from being used. This could lead to a 

larger impact on the environment and public health than allowing 

a small number of hours for peak shaving purposes. Certain small 

and remote facilities also rely on financial programs to 

generate additional income in order to maintain their engines 

and stay in operation. The additional funds can be essential for 
Page 36 of 197 

many smaller facilities and operations. Providing a limited 

allowance for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response 

could generate sufficient income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where these engines are in 

service. In order to further limit the operation of these 

engines to small, remote facilities, the EPA is proposing that 

the power generated under this allowance can only be used at the 

facility or towards the local system. In addition, while the EPA 

is proposing this allowance until the end of April 16, 2017, the 

EPA does not believe it is appropriate to continue the program 

beyond that time. Generators receive considerable compensation 

for their availability in peak shaving programs and the EPA 

believes that it is not appropriate to allow these engines to 

continue receiving compensation for this non-emergency use 

beyond 2017 without having to reduce their emissions. The 

generators must by that time decide whether to restrict their 

use to emergency or limited non-compensated non-emergency use or 

to reduce the emissions from their engines. The EPA also 

encourages engine owners and operators, as well as larger system 

planners, to consider the use of alternative peak shaving 

options, such as load curtailments, lower emitting distributed 

generation, combined heat and power, and reduced line losses on 

the electricity grid. 
Page 37 of 197 

The previous estimate of emissions from stationary 

emergency engines is not expected to change due to this proposed 

limited allowance. To estimate emissions from stationary 

emergency engines, the EPA has previously estimated that 

emergency engines would on average operate for 50 hours per 

year. There is a wide range in how much these engines operate 

(some well below 50 hours per year), but on average and to be 

conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is still 

representative and consequently the environmental impact the EPA 

has calculated previously remains appropriate. In consideration 

of all these issues, the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule 

to provide a limited allowance for peak shaving for existing 

stationary emergency engines at area sources of HAP. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

a. Emergency Demand Response. Based on the discussion in section 

II.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the 

current provisions for stationary engines used for emergency 

demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing 

to amend are in §§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) allows a maximum of 

15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation 

under certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) 

currently includes an allowance of 100 hours per year for 
Page 38 of 197 

purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE 

be permitted to operate their engines as part of an emergency 

demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is 

permitted for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). 

Owners and operators of stationary emergency engines can operate 

for emergency demand response during periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an EEA Level 2 

as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergency and during periods where there is a deviation of 

voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. The hours spent for emergency demand 

response operation are added to the hours spent for maintenance 

and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. 

If the total time spent for demand response operation and 

maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the engine 

will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart 

and will need to meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be called 

to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or 

equivalent to maintain the reliability of the bulk power system, 
Page 39 of 197 

but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, there is currently no 

emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit 

on the use of emergency engines for routine testing and 

maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those engines were not the 

focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did 

not make any changes to the requirements for those engines as 

part of the 2010 amendments. For consistency, the EPA is now 

also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to 

operate their engines as part of a demand response program as 

well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for 

maintenance and testing. 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

CI and SI engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for 

engines subject to the RICE NESHAP. The NSPS regulations 

currently do not include such an allowance for emergency demand 

response operation. For the reasons discussed in section II.B of 

this preamble as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to allow 

stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand 

Comment [A10]: The regulatory text at 

60.4211(f) does not match this – see the suggested 

edit. 
Page 40 of 197 

response programs and remain being considered emergency units, 

and for consistency across engine regulations, the EPA is 

proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under 

the NSPS regulations. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, to specify that emergency engines may 

participate in demand response programs for up to 100 hours per 

year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of 

the emergency engines. 

b. Peak Shaving and other Non-emergency Use as Part of a 

Financial Arrangement. In addition to the changes the EPA is 

proposing related to emergency demand response operation, the 

EPA is also including a further provision for owners and 

operators of existing stationary emergency RICE located at area 

sources for the reasons discussed in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble. Paragraph §63.6640(f) currently allows owners and 

operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate their engine 

for 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations. As currently 

written, the 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations 

cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for a 

facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply 

power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity; 

except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines 
Page 41 of 197 

may operate the engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as 

part of an emergency demand response program. As discussed, the 

15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to participate 

in emergency demand response programs is being increased to 100 

hours per year, but will also include hours spent towards 

maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the emergency 

engines. However, additionally, the EPA is also proposing that 

stationary emergency engines located at area sources be 

permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently 

allowed under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards 

any non-emergency operation, including operation as part of a 

financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving 

allowance would expire in 2017. The EPA is specifying that the 

power can only be used at the facility or towards the local 

system, and the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as 

part of a program with the local distribution system operator. 

The EPA is also clarifying that an engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak shaving, will be considered a 

non-emergency engine and subject to the requirements for nonemergency engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources

1. Background 
Page 42 of 197 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the requirements that 

apply to existing stationary non-emergency 4 stroke SI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP emissions, 

which are generally natural gas fired engines. Currently, the 

RICE NESHAP requires owners and operators of such engines to 1) 

either meet a CO concentration limit of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 

percent O2 or reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or more, if 

the engines are 4SLB; and 2) to meet a formaldehyde 

concentration limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, if the engines are 

4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects that the standards would be 

met using aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 4SLB engines 

and NSCR for 4SRB engines. In addition to these emission 

requirements, owners and operators of existing stationary 4-

stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are also 

subject to monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

After the final requirements for existing stationary SI 

engines greater than 500 HP at area sources were published on 

August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0581), the American Petroleum 

Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582), the Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0584), and the 

Gas Processors Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0587) 
Page 43 of 197 

requesting that the EPA reconsider the requirements of the final 

rule. The petitioners expressed many similar concerns. As 

relevant to this rulemaking, petitioners stated that the EPA did 

not take into account the difference in population density and 

subsequently did not consider the difference in health impacts 

in remote versus more heavily populated locations. In the 

petitioners’ opinion, there should be less concern about engines 

that are located farther away from people; the petitioners 

believed that the EPA has substantial latitude in requiring less 

stringent standards for owners and operators of stationary 

engines in remote areas. 

 While the EPA does not share all of the views of the 

petitioners regarding the difference between engines based on 

their location, the EPA does believe that it is reasonable to 

create a subcategory of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP located in areas remote from human 

activity. Engines located in remote areas that are not close to 

significant human activity may be difficult to access, may not 

have electricity or communications, and may be unmanned most of 

the time. The costs of the emission controls, testing, and 

continuous monitoring requirements may be unreasonable when 

compared to the HAP emission reductions that would be achieved, 

considering that the engines are in sparsely populated areas. 

The EPA believes that establishing a subcategory for SI engines 

Comment [A11]: Can EPA please explain its 

discretion and authority to establish subcategories 

based on geographic or cost considerations? 
Page 44 of 197 

at area sources of HAP located in sparsely populated areas 

accomplishes the agency’s goals and is adequate in protecting 

public health. 

 The EPA is proposing to subcategorize sparsely populated 

engines using the existing DOT pipeline classification system. 

This system classifies locations based on their distance to 

pipelines covered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration safety regulations. The DOT system defines a 

class location unit as an onshore area that extends 220 yards or 

200 meters on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-

mile (1.6 kilometers) length of pipeline. The DOT approach 

further classifies pipeline locations into Class 1 through Class 

4 locations based on the number of buildings intended for human 

occupancy. A Class 1 location is defined as an offshore area or 

any class location unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended 

for human occupancy. Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry 

have indicated to the EPA that the DOT system is wellestablished and there would be substantial overlap between 

engines affected by the rule and covered by the DOT pipeline 

classification system. Incorporating this approach would also 

create harmonization between the EPA and DOT and would reduce 

the implementation and enforcement burden for states. 

Implementation for affected sources would also be less 

burdensome because the system is already in place and used by 
Page 45 of 197 

industry and covers the majority of these engines. Stakeholders 

have indicated they are required to review the class location 

status of pipeline segments annually. The EPA believes this 

approach is reasonable for defining the subcategory of remote 

engines for those engines that are associated with DOT-regulated 

pipelines. For those engines not associated with pipelines, the 

EPA is using similar criteria. An engine would be considered to 

be in sparsely populated areas if within 0.25 mile radius of the 

engine there are 5 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

The EPA is proposing management practices as generally 

available control technologies for existing stationary SI 4SLB 

and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines located in sparsely 

populated areas. Given the remote location of the engines from 

human activity, the EPA believes that it is appropriate not to 

include requirements that would necessitate aftertreatment and 

extensive testing and monitoring. The EPA has previously 

estimated that the costs of oxidation catalyst for existing 4SLB 

and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources are $310 and $150 

million, for capital and annual costs, respectively. The capital 

and annual costs of the RICE NESHAP for existing 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP at area sources would be $30 million and 

$12 million, respectively, if these proposed amendments are 

incorporated into the rule. Creating a subcategory of these 
Page 46 of 197 

engines for the ones located in sparsely populated areas and not 

mandating emission controls would significantly reduce the cost 

of the rule for such engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source nonemergency engines that are located in populated areas, the EPA 

is proposing an equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst that will have to be 

tested initially and annually to ensure that the catalyst is 

working properly and reducing emissions as required. In 

addition, these units will be required to have devices to shut 

down the engine if the catalyst is exposed to dangerous 

temperatures or have continuous monitoring equipment installed 

to record catalyst inlet temperatures. The EPA is proposing 

shorter test duration and less rigorous methods than currently 

required while still ensuring that HAP reductions remain at 

expected levels for these engines located in populated areas. 

The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed 

below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 Owners and operators of engines in sparsely populated 

areas would have to conduct a review of the surrounding area 

every 12 months to determine if the nearby population has 

changed. If the engine no longer meets the criteria for a 

sparsely populated area the owner and operator must within 1 
Page 47 of 197 

year comply with the emission standards specified below for 

populated areas. Owners and operators of existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB greater than 500 HP at area sources that are in 

sparsely populated areas as described above would be required to 

perform the following: 

 Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 

 Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary; 

and 

 Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) of the rule in order to extend the 

specified oil change requirement. The oil analysis must be 

performed at the same frequency specified for changing the oil 

in Table 2d of the rule. The analysis program must at a minimum 

analyze the following three parameters: Total Acid Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total Acid Number increases by 

more than 3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram from 

Total Acid Number of the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has 

changed by more than 20 percent from the viscosity of the oil 
Page 48 of 197 

when new; or percent water content (by volume) is greater than 

0.5. If all of these condemning limits are not exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If 

any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator 

must change the oil within 2 days of receiving the results of 

the analysis; if the engine is not in operation when the results 

of the analysis are received, the engine owner or operator must 

change the oil within 2 days or before commencing operation, 

whichever is later. The owner or operator must keep records of 

the parameters that are analyzed as part of the program, the 

results of the analysis, and the oil changes for the engine. The 

analysis program must be part of the maintenance plan for the 

engine. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB 

area source engines above 500 HP in sparsely populated areas 

would also have to operate and maintain the stationary RICE and 

aftertreatment control device (if any) according to the 

manufacturer's emission-related written instructions or develop 

their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent 

practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. 

 For engines in populated areas, i.e., existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP at area 
Page 49 of 197 

sources that are located on DOT Class 2 through Class 4 pipeline 

segments or, for engines not associated with pipelines, that do 

not meet the 0.25 mile radius with 5 or less buildings criteria, 

the EPA is proposing to adopt an equipment standard requiring 

the installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP emissions. Owners 

and operators of existing area source 4SLB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP in populated areas would be required to 

install an oxidation catalyst. Owners and operators of existing 

area source 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in 

populated areas would be required to install NSCR. Owners and 

operators must conduct an initial test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions 

or a CO concentration level of 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2, if the 

engine is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and operators must 

conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO reduction or a 30 

percent THC reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB engine. The 

initial test must consist of three test runs. Each test run must 

be of at least 15 minute duration, except that each test run 

conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ must consist of one measurement cycle as defined by 

the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase 

measurement. To measure CO, emission sources must use the CO 

methods already specified in subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed 
Page 50 of 197 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The THC testing must 

be conducted using EPA Method 25A. 

 The owner or operator of both engine types must also use a 

high temperature shutdown device that detects if the catalyst 

inlet temperature is too high, or, alternatively, the owner or 

operator can monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously 

and maintain the temperature within the range specified in the 

rule. For 4SLB engines the catalyst inlet temperature must 

remain at or above 450°F and at or below 1,350°F. For 4SRB 

engines the temperature range must be greater than or equal to 

750°F and less than or equal to 1,250°F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in addition to the initial 

performance test conduct annual checks of the catalyst to ensure 

proper catalyst activity. The annual check of the catalyst must 

at a minimum consist of one 15-minute run using the methods 

discussed above, except that each test run conducted using the 

proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at 

least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. Owners and 

operators of 4SLB engines must demonstrate during the catalyst 

activity test that the catalyst achieves at least a 93 percent 

reduction in CO emissions or that the engine exhaust CO 

emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that their catalyst 
Page 51 of 197 

is reducing CO emissions by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively, that THC emissions are being reduced by at least 

30 percent during the catalyst activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do not exceed the levels 

required for the initial test or annual checks of the catalyst, 

then the catalyst is considered to be working properly. If the 

emissions exceed the specified pollutant levels in the rule, the 

exceedance(s) is/are not considered a violation, but the owner 

or operator would be required to shut down the engine and take 

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

the catalyst, as appropriate). A follow-up test must be 

conducted within 7 days of the engine being started up again to 

demonstrate that the emission levels are being met. If the 

retest shows that the emissions continue to exceed the specified 

levels, the stationary RICE must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the engine may not operate, except for 

purposes of start-up and testing, until the owner/operator 

demonstrates through testing that the emissions do not exceed 

the levels specified. 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP, the EPA required 

existing non-emergency CI engines above 300 HP to meet a 

standard of either 70 percent reduction of CO emissions or 49 

ppmvd CO, for engines between 300 and 500 HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for 
Page 52 of 197 

engines above 500 HP. The requirements also included testing and 

monitoring provisions. As with all requirements for existing 

engines in that rule, owners and operators were required to meet 

the requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the 

regulations (May 3, 2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for existing stationary 

CI engines, stakeholders from the agricultural industry in the 

San Joaquin Valley area of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these requirements on engines 

in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in San Joaquin Valley 

certified to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89 that were 

installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, 

stationary CI engines at area sources are existing if 

construction of the engine commenced prior to June 12, 2006. 

These 17 Tier 3 engines in the San Joaquin Valley, which were 

built to meet stringent emission standards, would not be able to 

comply with the applicable RICE NESHAP emission standards for 

existing engines without further testing and monitoring, and 

possible retrofit with further controls, due to differences in 

the emission standards and testing protocols in the RICE NESHAP 

versus the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. However, an 

identical engine certified to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 
Page 53 of 197 

standards for engines above 560 kilowatts (kW)) in 40 CFR part 

89 that was installed after June 12, 2006, would not have to be 

retrofit in order to comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI 

engines installed after June 12, 2006, at area sources of HAP 

are required to comply with the NSPS for stationary CI engines, 

which requires engines to be certified to the standards in 40 

CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as applicable. Thus, a 2006 

model year stationary CI engine installed after June 12, 2006, 

that is certified to the applicable standards would meet the 

requirements of the NESHAP without further controls or testing. 

While the EPA does not know if other certified Tier 3 engines 

besides these 17 engines in the San Joaquin Valley were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the same 

rationale should apply to any such engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 standards (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) are technologically stringent regulations 

and believes it is unnecessary to require further regulation of 

engines meeting these standards. Engines meeting the Tier 3 

standards typically employed emission control technologies such 

as combustion optimization and better fuel control to meet the 

Tier 3 standards. In order to address the concerns raised by the 

engine owners in the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA is proposing 

changes to amend the requirements for any certified Tier 3 (Tier 

2 for engines above 560 kW) stationary CI engine located at an 
Page 54 of 197 

area source and installed before June 12, 2006. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to specify that any existing certified Tier 

3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) CI engine that was installed 

before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This 

amendment would include any existing stationary Tier 3 (Tier 2 

for engines above 560 kW) certified CI engine located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

 Another concern brought to the EPA’s attention by the San 

Joaquin Valley agricultural industry is that due to state and 

local requirements in the San Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are regulated as existing 

sources under the NESHAP must be replaced in the next few years, 

only a short time after the emission standards for existing 

engines must be met. Specifically, the San Joaquin Valley APCD 

rule for internal combustion engines (Rule 4702) requires Tier 1 

and Tier 2 certified engines to meet Tier 4 standards by January 

1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date, but no later 

than June 1, 2018. The concern is that owners and operators of 

these engines would have to install aftertreatment by 2013 to 

meet the emission standards of the RICE NESHAP and then only a 

few years later be required to replace their engines per San 

Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are 

scheduled to be replaced under the local rule. The EPA has not 
Page 55 of 197 

identified any engines outside the San Joaquin Valley APCD area 

that are in the same or similar situation (i.e., required to be 

replaced shortly after the compliance date for existing 

engines), but the EPA does not preclude the possibility that 

there are such engines in other areas, and requests comment and 

information on other areas that may have similar concerns. 

 The EPA does not think it is appropriate to require 

emission controls on a stationary CI engine that is going to be 

retired only a short time after the rule goes into effect. 

Stationary CI engines would have to comply with this rule by May 

3, 2013, and owners of engines above 300 HP are expected to have 

to install aftertreatment on their engines in order to meet the 

emission standards. The EPA estimates that the one-time cost to 

equip a 500 HP stationary CI engine with the controls necessary 

to meet the emission standards under this rule is close to 

$14,000 and more than $3,000 on a yearly basis, not accounting 

for additional costs associated with monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting. These engines (equipped with 

aftertreatment) could end up being in operation for less than 2 

years or at most only 5 years before having to be replaced with 

a certified Tier 4 engine, as required by San Joaquin Valley 

District Rule 4702. It would not be reasonable to require the 

engine owner to invest in costly controls and monitoring 
Page 56 of 197 

equipment for an engine that will be replaced shortly after the 

installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions 

to address this concern. The EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements for existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

CI engines located at area sources that are greater than 300 HP 

that are subject to a state or local rule that requires the 

engine to be replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow these 

engines to meet management practices for a period of 2 years 

starting with the applicable May 3, 2013, compliance date. The 

EPA believes a period of 2 years is appropriate and provides 

owners enough time to replace their engines without mandating a 

possibly cost prohibitive requirement to change all of the 

engines in a short amount of time, while still requiring that 

replacement of the engine or a retrofit of the engine occur 

relatively quickly after the owner would have to comply with the 

NESHAP. The EPA is proposing that these engines be subject to 

management practices until May 3, 2015, after which time the CO 

emission standards discussed above (and that are in Table 2d of 

the rule) apply. The management practices include requirements 

for when to inspect and replace the engine oil and filter, air 

cleaner, hoses and belts. The complete details of which 

management practices are required are shown in Table 2d of the 
Page 57 of 197 

rule. Owners and operators of these existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources of HAP emissions that intend to 

meet management practices rather than the emission limits prior 

to May 3, 2015, must submit a notification by March 3, 2013, 

stating that they intend to use this provision and identifying 

the state or local regulation that the engine is subject to. 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska

1. Background 

 The RICE NESHAP currently specifies less stringent 

requirements for existing non-emergency CI engines at area 

sources located in remote areas of Alaska. Remote areas are 

defined as those not accessible by the FAHS. The FAHS includes 

areas with year-round ferry service that are not on the 

contiguous road system. Under the current regulation, stationary 

non-emergency CI engines at area sources in areas of Alaska that 

are not accessible by the FAHS are subject to management 

practices as opposed to numerical emission standards. 

Following the publication of the final rule in 2010, the 

EPA received requests to expand the definition of remote areas 

of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that facilities in areas that 

are accessible by the FAHS but are not connected to the Alaska 

Railbelt grid face the same challenges as those in areas not 

accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska Railbelt Grid refers to the 

service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend 
Page 58 of 197 

from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These 

utilities are the Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach 

Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer 

Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, and the 

City of Seward Electric System. According to the stakeholders, 

one reason for broadening the definition of remote areas in 

Alaska is high energy costs, which provide a natural incentive 

to run CI engines as little as possible. The cost of energy is 

utilities’ greatest concern in Alaska. Also, the stakeholders 

indicated that extreme weather conditions in certain areas of 

Alaska is another reason for including additional areas in the 

definition of remote areas of Alaska. The climate issue is 

unique to remote areas of Alaska that experience some of the 

most extreme temperatures in the country. Heavy snowfall and 

high winds are not uncommon in several areas that are accessible 

by the FAHS. For instance, Copper Valley Electric Association 

(CVEA) is a utility accessible by the FAHS, but it includes 

areas that face the same challenges as other communities not 

accessible by the FAHS. The utility operates on an isolated grid 

and relies on diesel power generation. In one of CVEA’s 

territories, Valdez, Alaska, CVEA indicated that this area 

experiences brutal conditions and stated that Valdez is 

considered to have the greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) 

in any city of the United States. Also, winds at more than 100 
Page 59 of 197 

miles per hour are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, according to 

CVEA. Temperatures between 40 and 50 below zero are also not 

abnormal, which emphasizes the extreme reliance on power, CVEA 

asserted. Travel times and accessibility are issues on a regular 

basis, but can be additionally exacerbated due to severe 

weather, which in some cases may lead to avalanches and road 

closings. In particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, in the 

event of poor weather conditions and road closings, there are in 

many cases no alternate roads to travel on. Further, access to 

specific isolated sites can also be problematic in particular 

remote areas of Alaska and the problems are unique to Alaska 

because of the infrastructure and environment. For example, 

communities made the case that sources along the AMHS that are 

only accessible by the AMHS should be treated the same way as 

communities not accessible by the FAHS. The AMHS primarily 

serves passengers and vehicles, and is not intended for 

transporting goods. Therefore, the same methods used to bring in 

goods to communities not on the FAHS are the same as those 

Alaskan villages served only by the AMHS. Goods are typically 

brought in to remote communities by barge and this is another 

example of a scenario that is unique to Alaska. Other arguments 

for expanding the definition of remote areas of Alaska beyond 

those not accessible by the FAHS include very low population 

density in many other remote areas although accessible by the 
Page 60 of 197 

FAHS, and the fact that many of these areas are not connected to 

the electric grid and rely on back up diesel generation to 

support fluctuating renewable energy systems. The energy supply 

system is another area that is particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country where the majority of 

customers are connected to the grid. Therefore, for the reasons 

discussed, the EPA is proposing expansion of the remote area 

source category. This proposal is supported by the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and communities with 

whom the EPA has discussed this issue. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to expand the current definition of 

remote areas of Alaska to extend beyond areas that are not 

accessible by the FAHS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the FAHS and that meet 

all of the following criteria are also considered remote and 

subject to management practices under the rule: 

 The stationary CI engine is located in an area not 

connected to the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

 At least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine 

per year is used for residential purposes, and 

 The system capacity is less than 12 megawatts, or the 

engine is used exclusively for backup power for renewable 
Page 61 of 197 

energy and is used less than 500 hours per year on a 10-

year rolling average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the remote classification to 

engines that are used at least partially for residential 

purposes, where the impact of higher energy costs is of greatest 

concern. The classification is further limited to sources that 

are used infrequently as backup for renewable power, or that are 

at smaller capacity facilities, which are generally in more 

sparsely populated areas. 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions

 The EPA is making some minor corrections to the stationary 

engine rules to address miscellaneous issues. The EPA is making 

some minor revisions in the rules to correct mistakes in the 

current rules or to clarify the rules. The revisions are as 

follows: 

 Revising Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

to correct language requiring the pressure drop to be at 

plus or minus 10 percent 100 percent load for all engines. 

The engines that were regulated in 2010 are not subject to 

the load requirements and therefore the EPA is correcting 

these tables to make this clear. 

 Adding a footnote to Table 1b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ stating that sources can petition the Administrator 
Page 62 of 197 

for a different temperature range consistent with Table 2b 

of the rule. 

 Correcting rows 8 and 10 in Table 2d of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ to indicate that the requirements apply to 

non-emergency, non-black start stationary RICE greater than 

500 HP that are 4SLB and 4SRB that operate more than 24 

hours per year, as intended in the original rule. 

 Revising the language in §63.6625(b) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ that states “...in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section” to “in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section.” 

 Changing Tables 2c and 2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 

where it currently specifies to inspect air cleaner, to 

also specify that it must be replaced as necessary. 

 Revising §63.6620(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to 

indicate that testing must be conducted within plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load for stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at a major source (except 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE greater than 500 

HP located at a major source) that are subject to testing. 

 Specifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, the operating limitations (pressure drop and 
Page 63 of 197 

catalyst inlet temperature) in Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ do not have to be met during startup. 

 For consistency, and as provided in the original RICE 

NESHAP for other stationary RICE, clarifying in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ that the existing stationary RICE 

regulated in 2010 (i.e., engines constructed before June 

12, 2006 that are less than or equal to 500 HP located at 

major sources or engines located at area sources) must burn 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 

of the gross heat input on an annual basis in order to 

qualify as a landfill or digester gas engine under the 

rule. 

 Clarifying §60.4207(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII to 

specify that owners and operators of stationary CI engines 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that are subject to the 

subpart that use diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b), except owners 

and operators may use up any diesel fuel acquired prior to 

October 1, 2010, that does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

 Adding appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which 

includes procedures that can be used for measuring CO 

emissions from existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE above 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that are 
Page 64 of 197 

complying with the emission limits in Table 2d of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

 Reinstating the footnotes for Table 2 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. The footnotes were inadvertently removed when 

the rule was amended on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37954). 

 Adding “part 60” in Table 4 of the NESHAP, in row 2 where 

it refers to 40 CFR appendix A. 

 Clarifying in §63.6625(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

that a continuous emission monitoring system is only 

required to be installed at the outlet of the control 

device for engines that are complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of CO. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that use gasoline. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are rich burn engines that use LPG. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(d) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 
Page 65 of 197 

stationary SI RICE that are not gasoline engines or rich 

burn engines that use LPG. 

G. Compliance Date

 The EPA has received questions regarding whether the 

compliance dates for engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and 

this proposed reconsideration will be extended. Affected sources 

that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about 

having sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance 

date, which is May 3, 2013, for existing stationary CI RICE and 

October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with 

compliance in the event that the EPA does not finalize changes 

that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in 

this action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, 

and October 19, 2013, compliance dates, because there are many 

engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, the EPA notes that 

sources that are affected by the reconsideration and that may 

need additional time to install controls to comply with the 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to 

install controls, as specified in 40 CFR 63.6(i). 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts?
Page 66 of 197 

The EPA estimates that the rule with the proposed 

amendments incorporated will reduce emissions from existing 

stationary RICE as shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The 

emissions reductions the EPA previously estimated for the 2010 

amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown for comparison. 

Reductions are shown for the year 2013, which is the first year 

the final RICE NESHAP will be implemented for existing 

stationary RICE. 

Table 1. Summary of Reductions for Existing Stationary RICE 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 

in the year 2013 

2010 Final Rule 

2010 Final Rule with 

these Proposed 

Amendments 

CI SI CI SI

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

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

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

NOx N/A 96,479 N/A 9,648 

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

 The EPA estimates that more than 900,000 stationary CI 

engines will be subject to the rule in total, but only a small 

number of stationary CI engines are affected by the proposed 

amendments in this action. It is estimated that approximately 

330,000 stationary SI engines will be subject to the rule in 

total; however, only a subset of stationary SI engines are 

affected by the proposed amendments in this action. The decrease 

in estimated reductions for SI engines is primarily due to 
Page 67 of 197 

proposed amendments to the requirements for existing 4SRB and 

4SLB SI engines larger than 500 HP at area sources of HAP that 

are in remote areas. Those engines were required by the 2010 

rule to meet emission limits that were expected to require the 

installation of aftertreatment to reduce emissions; under these 

proposed amendments, those engines are required to meet 

management practices that would not require the installation of 

aftertreatment. Further information regarding the estimated 

reductions of this final rule can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate any reductions 

associated with the minor changes to the NSPS for stationary CI 

and SI engines. 

B. What are the cost impacts?

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

cost of the original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The EPA 

estimates that with these proposed amendments incorporated the 

cost of the rule for existing stationary RICE will be as shown 

in Table 2 of this preamble. The costs the EPA previously 

estimated for the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown 

for comparison. 

Table 2. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary RICE

Engine 2010 Final Rule with these 

Comment [A12]: Please convert all dollar 

amounts to same base year. 
Page 68 of 197 

2010 Final Rule Proposed Amendments 

Total Annual Cost

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

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

Total Capital Cost 

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

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

Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts of the 

proposed amendments, including the cost of the proposed 

amendments in 2010 dollars, can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate costs associated 

with the changes to the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines. 

The changes to the NSPS are minor and are not expected to impact 

the costs of those rules. 

C. What are the benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of 

these rules will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP 

as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including 

CO, NOx and VOC. NOx and VOC are precursors to PM2.5 (particles

smaller than 2.5 microns) and ozone. The criteria pollutant 

benefits are considered co-benefits for these rules. For these 

rules, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits 

associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from emission reductions 

of NOx and directly emitted PM2.5. 
Page 69 of 197 

The EPA previously estimated that the monetized co-benefits 

in 2013 of the stationary CI NESHAP would be $940 million to 

$2,300 million (2008 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$850 million to $2,100 million (2008 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate.5

 For stationary SI engines, EPA previously 

estimated that the monetized co-benefits in 2013 would be $510 

million to $1,200 million (2009 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $460 million to $1,100 million (2009 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate.6

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

emission reductions of the rules. In addition to revising the 

anticipated emission reductions, we have also updated the 

methodology used to calculate the co-benefits to be consistent 

with methods used in more recent rulemakings, which is 

summarized below and discussed in more detail in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA). We estimate the monetized co-benefits of 

the proposed amendments of the CI NESHAP in 2013 to be $770 

million to $1,900 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

 

5

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Compression Ignition 

Engines NESHAP: Final Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

February. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/CIRICENESHAPRIA2-17-

0cleanpublication.pdf. 

6

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE 

NESHAP: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/riceriafinal.pdf. 
Page 70 of 197 

rate and $690 million to $1,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. For SI engines, we estimate the monetized 

co-benefits of the proposed amendments in 2013 to be $62 million 

to $150 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$55 million to $140 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates 

fall between these two estimates.7

 A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates for CI and SI engines at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 3 of this preamble. 

Table 3. Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Proposed 

Amendments to the NESHAP for Stationary CI and SI Engines 

(millions of 2010 dollars)a

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons per 

year) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(3 percent 

Discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7 percent 

Discount) 

Stationary CI Engines 

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

2,818 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Stationary SI Engines 

NOx 9,648 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 a

 All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded 

to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

 

7

 Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter 

in the U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274. 

Comment [A13]: Please include table similar to 

Table 2, putting monetized benefits of this rule side 

by side with benefits from previous. 
Page 71 of 197 

PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do 

not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or 

visibility impairment. 

b

 PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to 

Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2013 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order 

to meet these rules. To estimate human health co-benefits of 

these rules, the EPA used benefit-per-ton factors to quantify 

the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and monetized 

benefits based on changes in directly emitted PM2.5 and NOx 

emissions. These benefit-per-ton factors were derived using the 

general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009).8

 This approach uses a model to convert emissions 

of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes in human health associated 

with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 

emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

However, for these rules, we utilized source apportionment air 

quality modeling of emissions in the “Non-EGU Point other” 

 

8

 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of 

location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 

health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health (2009) 2:169–176. 
Page 72 of 197 

category because we do not have modeling specifically for 

stationary engines.9

 We apply these national benefit-per-ton 

estimates calculated for this sector separately for directly 

emitted PM2.5 and NOx and multiply them by the corresponding 

emission reductions. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are 

generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors. More 

information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-ton 

estimates for this category is available in the technical 

support document, which is available in the docket. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. The main PM2.5 precursors affected by these rules 

are directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX. Even though we assume that all 

fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit-perton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive 

population exposure. For example, directly emitted PM2.5 has a 

lower benefit-per-ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does 

 

9

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Technical support 

document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5

precursors from other point sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 
Page 73 of 197 

not form as much PM2.5; thus, the exposure would be lower, and 

the monetized health benefits would be lower. 

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based 

both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments 

elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the 

uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and 

premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one 

based on the American Cancer Society cohort study10 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.11 In the RIA for this proposed 

amendments rule, which is available in the docket, we also 

include benefits estimates derived from the expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

The EPA strives to use the best available science to 

support our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation 

of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 

 

10 Pope, et al., 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, 

and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

11 Laden, et al., 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and 

Critical Care Medicine 173: 667-672. 
Page 74 of 197 

model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with 

reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this finding, we have 

conformed the previous threshold sensitivity analysis to the 

current state of the PM science by incorporating a new “Lowest 

Measured Level” (LML) assessment in the RIA accompanying these 

rules. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the 

level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, the 

EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to 

quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related co-benefits for these 

rules would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are 

not available due to time or resource limitations, and thus, we 

are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each 

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the Pope, 

et al. (2002) study, 77 percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3

). Using the Laden, et al. (2006) study, 25 

percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

. 
Page 75 of 197 

It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in 

PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort 

studies. This fact is important, because, as we model avoided 

premature deaths among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we 

have lower confidence in levels below the LML for each study. 

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 

benefit analysis for these rules provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) RIA 

because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for these rules, and using a 

benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source of 

uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis12 provides an indication of the sensitivity of 

 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Proposed 

amendments Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 
Page 76 of 197 

our results to various assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOx, ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for these 

proposed amendments, we include a qualitative assessment of 

these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendments. 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is available in 

the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts?

The EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a result of these proposed 

amendments. 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its 

final decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects 

of this proposed rule from all interested parties. Whenever 

 

Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 
Page 77 of 197 

applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should be 

submitted to allow the EPA to make maximum use of the comments. 

The agency invites all parties to coordinate their data 

collection activities with the EPA to facilitate mutually 

beneficial and cost-effective data submissions. A 

redline/strikeout version of the complete NESHAP for stationary 

RICE, which shows the changes that are being proposed in this 

action, is available from the rulemaking docket. 

 The EPA is seeking specific comment on the proposal to 

temporarily allow stationary emergency engines located at area 

sources to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently allowed 

under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards any type 

of non-emergency operation, including peak shaving and nonemergency demand response if the peak shaving is done as part of 

a peak shaving (load management) program with the local 

distribution system operator. The EPA is proposing that the 

allowance be removed after April 16, 2017. 

The EPA recognizes that the electricity grid achieves 

demand response and grid stability with and without the use of 

emergency stationary RICE. Alternative approaches include 

reductions or shifts in energy use, electricity storage, 

distribution automation, microgrids, natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines, and grid-connected distributed generation, 

including non-emergency engines and combined heat and power. 
Page 78 of 197 

Many of these approaches can provide additional benefits, such 

as additional energy efficiency, lower costs, shorter 

electricity outage times, and better integration of renewable 

energy generation into the electricity grid. Several studies 

project a significant future potential for using less energy in 

homes, buildings, and industry during times of peak electricity 

demand. The EPA seeks comment on how these investments may 

affect the number of hours which emergency stationary RICE are 

needed in the future to address electricity peak shaving and 

grid stability. 

 The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on the 

proposed criteria for expanding the current definition of remote 

areas of Alaska beyond areas that are not accessible by the 

FAHS. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposed system 

capacity limitation of 12 megawatts and the alternative 500 hour 

cap on annual usage (based on a 10-year rolling average) are the 

appropriate criteria for distinguishing the areas of Alaska 

that, while accessible by the FAHS, have the same unique 

challenges as the areas that are not accessible by the FAHS. 

The EPA is also seeking information related to irrigation 

pump engine sizes. During the 2010 rulemaking, the EPA relied 

upon several sources to determine the potential number of 

irrigation engines that may be impacted by the rule. Using these 

sources, the EPA estimated that the vast majority of the 
Page 79 of 197 

existing irrigation engines were less than or equal to 300 HP. 

The EPA received several comments confirming this estimation. 

The EPA seeks comprehensive, nationwide information on the size 

of existing irrigation engines to either confirm or refute our 

understanding of existing irrigation engine sizes; this 

information will assist EPA in assessing the impacts of the 2010 

rule on existing irrigation engines. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the 

EPA prepared a RIA of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits, compliance costs and 

net benefits for the proposed amendments to the stationary CI 
Page 80 of 197 

engines NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is 

in Table 4 of this preamble. The summary for stationary SI 

engines is included in Table 5 of this preamble. 

Table 4. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary CI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance 

Costsc $373 $373 

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

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

Table 5. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary SI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance $115 $115 
Page 81 of 197 

Costsc

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

For more information on the cost-benefit analysis, please 

refer to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection 

burden. This action does not impose an information collection 

burden because the agency is not requiring any additional 

recordkeeping, reporting, notification or other requirements in 

these proposed amendments. The changes being proposed in this 

action do not affect information collection, but include 

revisions to emission standards and other minor issues. However, 

the OMB has previously approved the information collection 
Page 82 of 197 

requirements contained in the existing regulations under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0548. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. The companies owning facilities with affected RICE can be 

grouped into small and large categories using SBA general size 
Page 83 of 197 

standard definitions. Size standards are based on industry 

classification codes (i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that each company uses to 

identify the industry or industries in which they operate. The 

SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment, 

annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for 

electricity generating units—EGUs) of the owning entity. These 

thresholds vary by industry and are evaluated based on the 

primary industry classification of the affected companies. In 

cases where companies are classified by multiple NAICS codes, 

the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the NAICS code with 

the highest employee or revenue size standard) was used. 

As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across 

several industries use affected CI and SI stationary RICE; 

therefore, a number of size standards are utilized in this 

analysis. For the 15 industries identified at the 6-digit NAICS 

code represented in this analysis, the employment size standard 

(where it applies) varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The 

annual sales standard (where it applies) is as low as 0.75 

million dollars and as high as 33.5 million dollars. In 

addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as 

having a total electric output of 4 million megawatt-hours (MWhr) in the previous fiscal year. The specific SBA size standard 
Page 84 of 197 

is identified for each affected industry within the industry 

profile to support this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of 

this action to all affected small entities across all industries 

affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of 

their sales is less than 2 percent according to the small entity 

analysis. We conclude that there is no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities for this rule. 

For more information on the small entity impacts associated 

with the rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small 

Business Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be 

found in the RIA for each of the rules affected by this action. 

Although the proposed reconsideration rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule 

on small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA 

took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small 

entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options and 

the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and 
Page 85 of 197 

reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, 

EPA proposes to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of 

area sources affected under each of the RICE rules with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. The EPA is proposing management practices for 

certain existing engines located at area sources and is 

proposing amendments that will provide owners and operators with 

alternative and less expensive compliance demonstration methods. 

As a result of these proposed changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden associated with this 

rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The changes being proposed in this action by the 

agency will mostly affect stationary engine owners and operators 
Page 86 of 197 

and will not affect small governments. The proposed amendments 

will lead to a reduction in the cost burden. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. This proposed action primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant economic costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA 

and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
Page 87 of 197 

apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 

technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action reduces the 

burden of the rule on owners and operators of stationary engines 

by providing less burdensome compliance demonstration methods to 

owners and operators and greater flexibility in the operation of 

emergency engines. As a result of these proposed changes, the 

EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Page 88 of 197 

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 involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. While the agency identified two voluntary consensus standards 

as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use it in 

this rulemaking. The two candidate voluntary consensus 

standards, ISO 14965:2000(E) and EN 12619 (1999), identified 

would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The search and review results have been 

documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. 

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
Page 89 of 197 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. 

 The EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to determine 

whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the reconsideration of this final 

rule, as the EPA does not have specific information about the 

location of the stationary RICE affected by this rule. Although 

the EPA does not have specific engine location information, to 

the extent this rule achieves fewer reductions than the original 

rule, the decrease in reductions is primarily occurring in very 

remote areas that are sparsely populated. Comment [A14]: Are low-income people 

disproportionately impacted by emissions increases 

in sparsely populated areas? 
Page 90 of 197 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Page 91 of 197 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 60 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

40 CFR part 63 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 92 of 197

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart IIII—[amended]

1. Section 60.4207 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4207 What fuel requirements must I meet if I am an owner or 

operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine subject 

to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 (b) Beginning October 1, 2010, owners and operators of 

stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart with a displacement of 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that use diesel fuel must use 

diesel fuel that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel, except that any existing diesel fuel 

purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior to October 1, 2010, may 

be used until depleted. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 60.4211 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 
Page 93 of 197

§60.4211 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 
Page 94 of 197

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (f)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or 

local system operator, or the insurance company associated with 

the engine. The owner or operator may petition the Administrator 

for approval of additional hours to be used for maintenance 

checks and readiness testing, but a petition is not required if 

the owner or operator maintains records indicating that federal, 

state, or local standards require maintenance and testing of 

emergency ICE beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

Comment [A15]: Suggested conforming change 

with preamble text. A more extensive modification 

was also provided by public commenters – did EPA 

consider it: 

regional transmission organization, or equivalent

balancing authority, transmission operator, or local

distribution system operator has determined there

are emergency conditions that could lead to a

potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low

frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy

deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level” 

Comment [A16]: We don’t know whether this

definition is broad enough to cover all the

emergency situations covered by the current

regulatory language (cited in the previous comment

above with the addition of the local operator).   In

addition, we don’t know whether the local people

can call a Level 2 alert, or whether the level 2

language addresses local system reliability also.

One public commenter suggested the option of

using a paper voltage log or  power quality meter

readings to show the need for emergency response,

which would replace the need for a Level 2 Alert.   

We suggest the EPA solicit comments on other

situations that the Level 2 alert may not cover.  Did

EPA consider this?  
Page 95 of 197

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 3. Section 60.4219 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4219 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4211(f) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 
Page 96 of 197

requirements specified in §60.4211(f), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4211(f). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4211(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJJ—[amended]

4. Section 60.4231 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§60.4231 What emission standards must I meet if I am a 

manufacturer of stationary SI internal combustion engines or 

equipment containing such engines?
Page 97 of 197

* * * * * 

(b) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2), or manufactured on or after 

the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary 

ICE with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 

HP that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

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

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II engines, and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) that use gasoline 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 98 of 197

(c) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are 

manufactured on or after the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2) , 

or manufactured on or after the applicable date in 

§60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, to the 

certification emission standards and other requirements for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI internal 

combustion engine manufacturers must certify their emergency 

stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP that 

are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are manufactured on 

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

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, and other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 

CFR part 90. Stationary SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total 

displacement less than or equal to 1,000 cc that are rich burn 

engines that use LPG to the certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 99 of 197

(d) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

who choose to certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 75 KW (100 

HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use LPG and 

emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) under the voluntary 

manufacturer certification program described in this subpart 

must certify those engines to the certification emission 

standards for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers who 

choose to certify their emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP (except gasoline and rich burn 

engines that use LPG), must certify those engines to the Phase 1 

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cc (except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use LPG) to the certification emission standards for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. For stationary SI ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 

75 KW (100 HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use 

LPG and emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power 
Page 100 of 197

greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2011, manufacturers may choose to certify these 

engines to the standards in Table 1 to this subpart applicable 

to engines with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 

100 HP and less than 500 HP. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.4243 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4243 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary SI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(d) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 
Page 101 of 197

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (d)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(d)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 
Page 102 of 197

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 6. Section 60.4248 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4248 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Page 103 of 197

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4243(d). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4243(d)(2)(ii) or (iii). 
Page 104 of 197

* * * * * 

7. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 –- Requirements for 

Performance Tests 

As stated in §60.4244, you must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests within 10 percent of 100 

percent peak (or the highest achievable) load: 

For each Complying 

with the 

requirement 

to 

You must Using According 

to the 

following 

requirement

s 

1. 

Stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

demonstrati

ng 

compliance 

according 

to 

§60.4244. 

a. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of NOx

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for NOx

concentrati

on. 
Page 105 of 197

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for NOx 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

NOx at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

7E of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 
Page 106 of 197

b. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of CO in 

the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for CO 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 
Page 107 of 197

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for CO 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

CO at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

ASTM Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

c. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of VOC 

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A.

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 
Page 108 of 197

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005) a. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for VOC 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for VOC 

concentrati

on. 
Page 109 of 197

v. Measure 

VOC at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) 

Methods 25A 

and 18 of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 25A 

with the 

use of a 

methane 

cutter as 

described 

in 40 CFR 

1065.265, 

Method 18 

or 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

Ac,d, Method 

320 of 40 

CFR part 

63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

a

 ASTM D6522-00 is incorporated by reference; see 40 CFR 60.17. 

Also, you may petition the Administrator for approval to use 

alternative methods for portable analyzer. 

b

 You may use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, 

for measuring the O2 content of the exhaust gas as an alternative 

to EPA Method 3B. 

c

 You may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

provided that you conduct an adequate presurvey test prior to 

the emissions test, such as the one described in OTM 11 on EPA’s 

website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm11.pdf). d

 You may use ASTM D6420-99 (2004), Test Method for Determination 

of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry as an alternative to EPA Method 

18 for measuring total nonmethane organic. 

PART 63--[AMENDED]
Page 110 of 197

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart ZZZZ--[amended] 

9. Section 63.6585 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * * 

(f) The emergency stationary RICE listed in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (3) of this section are not subject to this 

subpart. The stationary RICE must meet the definition of an 

emergency stationary RICE in §63.6675, which includes operating 

according to the provisions specified in §63.6640(f). 

(1) Existing residential emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(2) Existing commercial emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(3) Existing institutional emergency stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP emissions. 

10. Section 63.6590 is amended by removing paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) through (viii). 

11. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Page 111 of 197

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations and other requirements no 

later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 

500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an 

existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements no 

later than May 3, 2013. If you have an existing stationary SI 

RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an existing 

stationary SI RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, 

you must comply with the applicable emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other requirements no later than 

October 19, 2013. 

* * * * * 

 12. Section 63.6602 is revised to read as follows: 
Page 112 of 197

§63.6602 What emission limitations and other requirements must 

I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions?

If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission 

limitations and other requirements in Table 2c to this subpart 

which apply to you. Compliance with the numerical emission 

limitations established in this subpart is based on the results 

of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the testing 

requirements and procedures in §63.6620 and Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

13. Section 63.6603 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (b); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6603 What emission limitations, operating limitations, and 

other requirements must I meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?

* * * * * 

 (b) If you own or operate an existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP that meets either paragraph (b)(1) or 
Page 113 of 197

(b)(2) of this section, you do not have to meet the numerical CO 

emission limitations specified in Table 2d of this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP that meet 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section must meet the 

management practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency 

CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in 

Table 2d of this subpart. 

 (1) The area source is located in an area of Alaska that is 

not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). 

 (2) The stationary RICE is located at an area source that 

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

section. 

 (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid. 

 (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes. 

 (iii) The generating capacity of the area source is less 

than 12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively 
Page 114 of 197

for backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 

hrs per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

 (c) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and that is 

subject to an enforceable state or local standard that requires 

the engine to be replaced no later than June 1, 2018, you may 

until May 3, 2015, choose to comply with the management 

practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d 

of this subpart instead of the applicable emission limitations 

in Table 2d, operating limitations in Table 2b, and crankcase 

ventilation system requirements in §63.6625(g). After May 3, 

2015, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 2d 

and operating limitations in Table 2b that apply for nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. After May 3, 2015, you must 

also comply with the crankcase ventilation system requirements 

in §63.6625(g). 

 (d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 3 (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 
Page 115 of 197

89.112, you may comply with the requirements under this part by 

meeting the requirements for Tier 3 engines (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) in 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII instead of the 

emission limitations and other requirements that would otherwise 

apply under this part for existing non-emergency CI RICE with a 

site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

 (e) An existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP must meet the definition of remote stationary 

RICE in §63.6675 on the initial compliance date for the engine, 

October 19, 2013, in order to be considered a remote stationary 

RICE under this subpart. Owners and operators of existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that meet the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in §63.6675 of this subpart 

as of October 19, 2013 must evaluate the status of their 

stationary RICE every 12 months. Owners and operators must keep 

records of the initial and annual evaluation of the status of 

the engine. If the evaluation indicates that the stationary RICE 

no longer meets the definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§63.6675 of this subpart, the owner or operator must comply with 

all of the requirements for existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP 
Page 116 of 197

located at area sources of HAP that are not remote stationary 

RICE within one year of the evaluation. 

 14. Section 63.6604 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.6604 What fuel requirements must I meet if I own or operate 

an existing stationary CI RICE?

If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 300 

brake HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder 

that uses diesel fuel, you must use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

Existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE located in Guam, 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, or at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) are exempt from the 

requirements of this section. 

15. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

 (a) You must be in compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in 

this subpart that apply to you at all times. 

* * * * * 
Page 117 of 197

16. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I 

use?

* * * * * 

(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this 

subpart. If you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE 

that is subject to performance testing, you do not need to start 

up the engine solely to conduct the performance test. Owners and 

operators of a non-operational engine can conduct the 

performance test when the engine is started up again. The test 

must be conducted at any load condition within plus or minus 10 

percent of 100 percent load for the stationary RICE listed in 

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

(1) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

(2) New non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than or equal to 250 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(3) New non-emergency 2SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions. 
Page 118 of 197

(4) New non-emergency CI stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

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

determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement: 

Where: 

Ci = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device inlet, 

Co = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device outlet, and 

R = percent reduction of CO, THC, or formaldehyde 

emissions. 

(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO), total 

hydrocarbons (THC), or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device to a dry basis and to 15 

percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide (CO2). If 

pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15 percent 

oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of oxygen 

concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is needed. 

Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

Ci-Co

Ci x 100 = R (Eq. 1) 
Page 119 of 197

(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel 

burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, 

Section 5.2, and the following equation: 

Where: 

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the 

ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero 

percent excess air. 

0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100. 

 Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu). 

Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu) 

(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting 

measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows: 

Where: 

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent. 

5.9 = 20.9 percent O2 - 15 percent O2, the defined O2

correction value, percent. 

(iii) Calculate the CO, THC, and formaldehyde gas 

concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using CO2 as follows: 

Fo = 

0.209 Fd

Fc (Eq. 2) 

XCO2 = 5.9

Fo (Eq. 3) 

Cadj = Cd

XCO2

%CO2

 (Eq. 4) 
Page 120 of 197

Where: 

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry basis, percent. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.6625 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b); 

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

d. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, collection, 

operation, and maintenance requirements?

 (a) If you elect to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 

of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS 

to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

If you are meeting a requirement to reduce CO emissions, the 

CEMS must be installed at both the inlet and outlet of the 

control device. If you are meeting a requirement to limit the 

concentration of CO, the CEMS must be installed at the outlet of 

the control device. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this 

subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 
Page 121 of 197

according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (6) An existing non-emergency, non-black start stationary 

RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions which combusts 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; 

* * * * * 

 (g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI engine greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not 

equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system, you must 

comply with either paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. Owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s 

specified maintenance requirements for operating and maintaining 

the open or closed crankcase ventilation systems and replacing 

the crankcase filters, or can request the Administrator to 

approve different maintenance requirements that are as 

protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines 

located at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) do not have to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. 
Page 122 of 197

 (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that 

prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted to the 

atmosphere, or 

 (2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control 

system that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering 

the exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates and metals. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.6630 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Adding paragraph (d); and 

d. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

 (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirement 

that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (d) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 

requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or 

more can demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde 

emission limit by testing for THC instead of formaldehyde. The 

testing must be conducted according to the requirements in Table 
Page 123 of 197

4 of this subpart. The average reduction of emissions of THC 

determined from the performance test must be equal to or greater 

than 30 percent. 

(e) The initial compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

three test runs. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
Page 124 of 197

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

19. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

a. Amending the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

d. Revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other 

requirements in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, 

and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according to 

methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (c) The annual compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 
Page 125 of 197

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

one test run. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 
Page 126 of 197

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

 (7) If the results of the annual compliance demonstration 

show that the emissions exceed the levels specified in Table 6 

of this subpart, the stationary RICE must be shut down as soon 

as safely possible, and appropriate corrective action must be 

taken (e.g., repairs, catalyst cleaning, catalyst replacement). 

The stationary RICE must be retested within 7 days of being 

restarted and the emissions must meet the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. If the retest shows that the emissions 

continue to exceed the specified levels, the stationary RICE 

must again be shut down as soon as safely possible, and the 

stationary RICE may not operate, except for purposes of startup 

and testing, until the owner/operator demonstrates through 

testing that the emissions do not exceed the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary RICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary RICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

RICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 
Page 127 of 197

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary RICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 
Page 128 of 197

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency RICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

emergency demand response for periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert 

Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity 

and Energy Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary RICE located at major sources of 

HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in nonemergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar 

year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response 

provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per 

year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak 

shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income 
Page 129 of 197

for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another 

entity. 

 (4) Existing emergency stationary RICE located at area 

sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in 

non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours 

per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency 

demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

 (i) Prior to April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for nonemergency situations can be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response to generate income for a facility, or 

to otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement 

with another entity if engines is operated as part of a peak 

shaving (load management program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is provided only to the facility 

itself or to support the local distribution system. 

 (ii) On or after April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part 

of a financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 20. Section 63.6645 is amended by adding a new paragraph 

(i) to read as follows: 
Page 130 of 197

§63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * * 

 (i) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and subject to an 

enforceable state or local standard requiring engine replacement 

and you intend to meet management practices rather than emission 

limits, as specified in §63.6603(c), you must submit a 

notification by March 3, 2013, stating that you intend to use 

the provision in §63.6603(c) and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

21. Section 63.6675 is amended by: 

 a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Alaska 

Railbelt Grid;

b. Revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE; 

and 

c. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Remote

stationary RICE to read as follows. 

§63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

 Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six 

regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to 

Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden 

Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; 
Page 131 of 197

Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward 

Electric System. 

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets all of the 

criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition. All 

emergency stationary RICE must comply with the requirements 

specified in §63.6640(f) in order to be considered emergency 

stationary RICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

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

to be an emergency stationary RICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary RICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary RICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump 

water in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary RICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §63.6640(f). 
Page 132 of 197

 (3) The stationary RICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§63.6640(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) and §63.6640(f)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Remote stationary RICE means stationary RICE meeting any of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Stationary RICE located in an offshore area that is 

beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the 

coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the 

open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of 

inland waters. 

 (2) Stationary RICE located on a pipeline segment that 

meets both of the criteria in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this 

definition. 

(i) A pipeline segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended 

for human occupancy within 220 yards (200 meters) on either side 

of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) 

length of pipeline. Each separate dwelling unit in a multiple 

dwelling unit building is counted as a separate building 

intended for human occupancy. 

(ii) The pipeline segment does not lie within 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside 

area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or 
Page 133 of 197

other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. The days and weeks need not be consecutive. The building 

or area is considered occupied for a full day if it is occupied 

for any portion of the day. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (2), the term pipeline 

segment means all parts of those physical facilities through 

which gas moves in transportation, including but not limited to 

pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attached to pipe, 

compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, 

delivery stations, holders, and fabricated assemblies. 

Stationary RICE located within 50 yards (46 m) of the pipeline 

segment providing power for equipment on a pipeline segment are 

part of the pipeline segment. Transportation of gas means the 

gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or 

the storage of gas. A building is intended for human occupancy 

if its primary use is for a purpose involving the presence of 

humans. 

(3) Stationary RICE that are not located on pipelines and 

that have 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy 

within a 0.25 mile radius around the engine. 

* * * * * 

 22. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 
Page 134 of 197

Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

Existing, New, and Reconstructed SI 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6603, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must 

comply with the following operating limitations for existing, 

new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 

1. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and using NSCR; 

 

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 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 750°F and less than or 

equal to 1250°F.1
Page 135 of 197

2. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and not using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and not using NSCR. 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 23. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

New and Reconstructed 2SLB and CI Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, New and 

Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a Major 

Source of HAP Emissions, Existing CI Stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and Existing 4SLB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located at an Area 

Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6603, 63.6630, and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following operating limitations for new 

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

a major source of HAP emissions; new and reconstructed 4SLB 

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

emissions; and existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP:

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 
Page 136 of 197

1. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and using an 

oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water at 

100 percent load plus or minus 

10 percent from the pressure 

drop across the catalyst that 

was measured during the initial 

performance test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1

2. Existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and 

using an oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water 

from the pressure drop across 

the catalyst that was measured 

during the initial performance 

test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1
Page 137 of 197

3. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and not 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and not using an 

oxidation catalyst 

and 

existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not 

using an oxidation catalyst 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 24. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a Major Source 

of HAP Emissions and Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 
Page 138 of 197

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6602, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following requirements for existing compression 

ignition stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP 

emissions and existing spark ignition stationary RICE ≤500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following requirement, 

except during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Emergency 

stationary CI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

CI RICE.1

 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

Minimize the 

engine’s time spent 

at idle and minimize 

the engine’s startup 

time at startup to a 

period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the 

engine, not to 

exceed 30 minutes, 

after which time the 

non-startup emission 

limitations apply.3

 

2. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE <100 HP. 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

3. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

100<HP<300 HP. 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 230 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. 
Page 139 of 197

4. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 49 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

5. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 23 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

6. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

SI RICE.1

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

7. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP 

that are not 

2SLB stationary 

RICE. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 1,440 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3
Page 140 of 197

8. NonEmergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 4,320 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

9. Nonemergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 225 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

10. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 47 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

11. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust 

to 10.3 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2

12. Nonemergency, nonblack start 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 which 

combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 177 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

work practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c 

of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the 
Page 141 of 197

required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law, the work practice can be 

delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law has abated. The work practice 

should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency 

has ended or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or 

local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform 

the work practice on the schedule required and the federal, 

state or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.

2

Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart. 

3 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

 25. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6603 and 63.6640, you must comply with the 

following requirements for existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following 

requirement, except 

during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

<300 HP 

 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

Minimize the engine’s 

time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s 

startup time at startup 

to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the engine, 

not to exceed 30 

minutes, after which 

time the non-startup 

emission limitations 

apply. 
Page 142 of 197

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

2. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more. 

3. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more.

4. Emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

and black start 

stationary CI 

RICE2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 143 of 197

5. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE; black start 

stationary SI 

RICE; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year; 

non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

6. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

2SLB stationary 

RICE 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 4,320 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 144 of 197

7. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

8. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

to reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 145 of 197

9. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

10. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install NSCR to 

reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 146 of 197

11. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

stationary RICE 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 1 Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart. 

2 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

management practice requirements on the schedule required in 

Table 2d of this subpart, or if performing the management 

practice on the required schedule would otherwise pose an 

unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the 

management practice can be delayed until the emergency is over 

or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law has 

abated. The management practice should be performed as soon as 

practicable after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable 

risk under federal, state, or local law has abated. Sources must 

report any failure to perform the management practice on the 

schedule required and the federal, state or local law under 

which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 

 26. 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: 
Page 147 of 197

For each... Complying with the 

requirement to... 

You must...

1. New or 

reconstructed 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources; new 

or reconstructed 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP 

located at major 

sources; and new 

or reconstructed 

CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources. 

Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

2. 4SRB stationary 

RICE ≥5,000 HP 

located at major 

sources. 

Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

3. Stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources and 

new or 

reconstructed 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at major sources. 

Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in 

the stationary 

RICE exhaust 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

4. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

3 years, whichever 

comes first. 

5. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

5 years, whichever 

comes first. 

1 After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 
Page 148 of 197

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

 27. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

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) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

(incorpo

rated by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14). 

(a) 

Measurements 

to determine 

O2 must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for CO 

concentration. 

ii. 

Measure 

the CO at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) ASTM 

D6522-00 

(2005)a,b

(incorpo

ra-ted 

by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14) 

(a) The CO 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 
Page 149 of 197

or 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A. 

2. 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE 

a. reduce 

formaldehyd

e 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 

concentratio

n must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 
Page 150 of 197

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

content 

at the 

inlet and 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device; 

and 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 

iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the 

formaldeh

yde 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

formaldehyde at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), 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. 
Page 151 of 197

 iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the THC 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

THC at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

25A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

(a) THC 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

3. 

Stationary 

RICE 

a. limit 

the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the 

stationary 

RICE 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

and 

(1) 

Method 1 

or 1A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

§63.7(d)

(1)(i) 

(a) if using 

a control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must be 

located at 

the outlet 

of the 

control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentra

tion of 

the 

stationar

y RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(1) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)

. 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

O2 concentration must be 

made at the 

same time 

and location 

as the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentration. 

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 
Page 152 of 197

content 

of the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentratio

n. 

iv. 

Measure 

formaldehyde at 

the 

exhaust 

of the 

stationary RICE; 

or 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), the 

percent 

R must 

be 

greater 

than or 

equal to 

70 and 

less 

than or 

equal to 

130. 

(a) 

Formaldehyde 

concentratio

n 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 

(1) 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

(a) CO 

concentratio

n must be at 

15 percent 
Page 153 of 197

of the 

stationary RICE. 

60, 

appendix 

A, ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

, 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03. 

O2, dry 

basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

a

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) from at least one 

of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-

2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb 

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to 

test both CI and SI stationary RICE. 

b

You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. 

c

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the 

following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or 

University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48106. 

 28. 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 . . . 
Page 154 of 197

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and using 

oxidation catalyst, 

and using a CPMS 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 155 of 197

2. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, using oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test.

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 
Page 156 of 197

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

4. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and not using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 157 of 197

5. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, and 

using a CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

both the inlet and 

outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

reduction of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 equals or 

exceeds the 

required percent 

reduction. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance 

is based on the 

average percent 

reduction achieved 

during the 4-hour 

period. 
Page 158 of 197

6. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and using a 

CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

the outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

concentration of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 is less 

than or equal to 

the CO emission 

limitation. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance is 

based on the 

average 

concentration 

measured during the 

4-hour period. 

7. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 
Page 159 of 197

percent reduction, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than 30 

percent; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

8. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction; 

and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 
Page 160 of 197

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

9. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. The average 

formaldehyde 

concentration, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

10. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

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 
Page 161 of 197

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

11. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions. 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable, percent 

reduction. 

12. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust. 

i. The average 

formaldehyde or CO 

concentration, as 

applicable, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

or CO emission 

limitation, as 

applicable. 

13. Existing nonemergency 4SLB a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. You have 

conducted an 
Page 162 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

 initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350°F. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. You have 

conducted an 

initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 
Page 163 of 197

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250°F. 

 29. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations, Work Practices, and 

Management Practices 

As stated in §63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations and work or management 

practices as required by the following: 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . 

. 

You must 

demonstrate 

continuous 

compliance by 

. . . 

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

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 achieveda

; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 164 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

2. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for CO to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO 

percent reduction 

is achieveda

; 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 
Page 165 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

a CEMS 

i. Collecting the 

monitoring data 

according to 

§63.6625(a), 

reducing the 

measurements to 1-

hour averages, 

calculating the 

percent reduction 

or concentration of 

CO emissions 

according to 

§63.6620; and 

ii. Demonstrating 

that the catalyst 

achieves the 

required percent 

reduction of CO 

emissions over the 

4-hour averaging 

period, or that the 

emission remain at 

or below the CO 

concentration 

limit; and 

iii. Conducting an 

annual RATA of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, as 

well as daily and 

periodic data 

quality checks in 

accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix F, 
Page 166 of 197

procedure 1. 

4. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

5. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 
Page 167 of 197

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

6. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE with a brake 

HP ≥5,000 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

the required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction 

is achieved, or to 

demonstrate that 

the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

performance test is 

equal to or greater 

than 30 percent.a

7. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 168 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

8. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 169 of 197

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

9. Existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

<100 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

≤300 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary SI RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis, existing 

non-emergency 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

a. Work or 

Management 

practices. 

i. Operating and 

maintaining the 

stationary RICE 

according to the 

manufacturer’s 

emission-related 

operation and 

maintenance 

instructions; 

or 

ii. Develop and 

follow your own 

maintenance plan 

which must provide 

to the extent 

practicable for the 

maintenance and 

operation of the 

engine in a manner 

consistent with 

good air pollution 

control practice 

for minimizing 

emissions. 
Page 170 of 197

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year, and 

existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

are remote 

stationary RICE. 

10. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 171 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

11. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 172 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

12. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 173 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

13. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 174 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2; and 

either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 
Page 175 of 197

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350° F. 

15. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more;

and either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250° F. 
Page 176 of 197

a

After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

30. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports 

As stated in §63.6650, you must comply with the following 

requirements for reports: 

For each . . 

. 

You must 

submit a . . 

. 

The report must 

contain . . . 

You must submit 

the report . . . 

1. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary 

RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency 

4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

Compliance 

report 

a. If there are 

no deviations 

from any 

emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations that 

apply to you, a 

statement that 

there were no 

deviations from 

the emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations 

during the 

reporting 

period. If there 

were no periods 

during which the 

CMS, including 

CEMS and CPMS, 

was out-ofcontrol, as 

specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), a 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) for engines 

that are not 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations; and 

ii. Annually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(6)-

(9) for engines 

that are limited 

use stationary 

RICE subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations. 
Page 177 of 197

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >300 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP; new 

or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; and 

new or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

4SLB 

stationary 

RICE 

250≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP 

statement that 

there were not 

periods during 

which the CMS 

was out-ofcontrol during 

the reporting 

period; or 

b. If you had a 

deviation from 

any emission 

limitation or 

operating 

limitation 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(d). If 

there were 

periods during 

which the CMS, 

including CEMS 

and CPMS, was 

out-of-control, 

as specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), the 

information in 

§63.6650(e); or 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

c. If you had a 

malfunction 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(c)(4). 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

2. New or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE that 

combusts 

landfill gas 

or digester 

gas 

equivalent to 

Report a. The fuel flow 

rate of each 

fuel and the 

heating values 

that were used 

in your 

calculations, 

and you must 

demonstrate that 

the percentage 

i. Annually, 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650. 
Page 178 of 197

10 percent or 

more of the 

gross heat 

input on an 

annual basis 

of heat input 

provided by 

landfill gas or 

digester gas, is 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis; 

and 

b. The operating 

limits provided 

in your 

federally 

enforceable 

permit, and any 

deviations from 

these limits; 

and 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

c. Any problems 

or errors 

suspected with 

the meters. 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

3. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP that 

are not 

remote 

stationary 

RICE and that 

operate more 

than 24 hours 

per calendar 

year 

Compliance 

report 

a. The results 

of the annual 

compliance 

demonstration, 

if conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period. 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) 

 31. Appendix A to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is added to read 

as follows: 
Page 179 of 197

Appendix A 

Protocol for Using an Electrochemical Analyzer to Determine 

Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Certain Engines 

1.0 Scope and Application. What is this Protocol? 

This protocol is a procedure for using portable electrochemical 

(EC) cells for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) 

concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled emissions from 

existing stationary 4-stroke lean burn and 4-stroke rich burn 

reciprocating internal combustion engines as specified in the 

applicable rule. 

1.1 Analytes. What does this protocol determine? 

This protocol measures the engine exhaust gas concentrations of 

carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). 

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity

Carbon monoxide (CO) 630-08-0 Minimum detectable 

limit should be 2 

percent of the 

nominal range or 1 

ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

Oxygen (O2) 7782-44-7 

1.2 Applicability. When is this protocol acceptable? 

This protocol is applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Because of inherent cross sensitivities of EC cells, you must 

not apply this protocol to other emissions sources without 

specific instruction to that effect. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. How good must my collected data be? 
Page 180 of 197

Refer to Section 13 to verify and document acceptable analyzer 

performance. 

1.4 Range. What is the targeted analytical range for this 

protocol? 

The measurement system and EC cell design(s) conforming to this 

protocol will determine the analytical range for each gas 

component. The nominal ranges are defined by choosing up-scale 

calibration gas concentrations near the maximum anticipated flue 

gas concentrations for CO and O2, or no more than twice the 

permitted CO level. 

1.5 Sensitivity. What minimum detectable limit will this 

protocol yield for a particular gas component? 

The minimum detectable limit depends on the nominal range and 

resolution of the specific EC cell used, and the signal to noise 

ratio of the measurement system. The minimum detectable limit 

should be 2 percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

2.0 Summary of Protocol 

In this protocol, a gas sample is extracted from an engine 

exhaust system and then conveyed to a portable EC analyzer for 

measurement of CO and O2 gas concentrations. This method provides 

measurement system performance specifications and sampling 

protocols to ensure reliable data. You may use additions to, or 

modifications of vendor supplied measurement systems (e.g., 
Page 181 of 197

heated or unheated sample lines, thermocouples, flow meters, 

selective gas scrubbers, etc.) to meet the design specifications 

of this protocol. Do not make changes to the measurement system 

from the as-verified configuration (Section 3.12). 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Measurement System. The total equipment required for the 

measurement of CO and O2 concentrations. The measurement system 

consists of the following major subsystems: 

3.1.1 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or digital 

recorder for logging measurement data from the analyzer output. 

You may record measurement data from the digital data display 

manually or electronically.

3.1.2 Electrochemical (EC) Cell. A device, similar to a fuel 

cell, used to sense the presence of a specific analyte and 

generate an electrical current output proportional to the 

analyte concentration.

3.1.3 Interference Gas Scrubber. A device used to remove or 

neutralize chemical compounds that may interfere with the 

selective operation of an EC cell.

3.1.4 Moisture Removal System. Any device used to reduce the 

concentration of moisture in the sample stream so as to protect 

the EC cells from the damaging effects of condensation and to 

minimize errors in measurements caused by the scrubbing of 

soluble gases.
Page 182 of 197

3.1.5 Sample Interface. The portion of the system used for one 

or more of the following: sample acquisition; sample transport; 

sample conditioning or protection of the EC cell from any 

degrading effects of the engine exhaust effluent; removal of 

particulate matter and condensed moisture. 

3.2 Nominal Range. The range of analyte concentrations over 

which each EC cell is operated (normally 25 percent to 150 

percent of up-scale calibration gas value). Several nominal 

ranges can be used for any given cell so long as the calibration 

and repeatability checks for that range remain within 

specifications. 

3.3 Calibration Gas. A vendor certified concentration of a 

specific analyte in an appropriate balance gas. 

3.4 Zero Calibration Error. The analyte concentration output 

exhibited by the EC cell in response to zero-level calibration 

gas. 

3.5 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference 

between the analyte concentration exhibited by the EC cell and 

the certified concentration of the up-scale calibration gas. 

3.6 Interference Check. A procedure for quantifying analytical 

interference from components in the engine exhaust gas other 

than the targeted analytes. 

3.7 Repeatability Check. A protocol for demonstrating that an EC 

cell operated over a given nominal analyte concentration range 
Page 183 of 197

provides a stable and consistent response and is not 

significantly affected by repeated exposure to that gas. 

3.8 Sample Flow Rate. The flow rate of the gas sample as it 

passes through the EC cell. In some situations, EC cells can 

experience drift with changes in flow rate. The flow rate must 

be monitored and documented during all phases of a sampling run. 

3.9 Sampling Run. A timed three-phase event whereby an EC cell’s 

response rises and plateaus in a sample conditioning phase, 

remains relatively constant during a measurement data phase, 

then declines during a refresh phase. The sample conditioning 

phase exposes the EC cell to the gas sample for a length of time 

sufficient to reach a constant response. The measurement data 

phase is the time interval during which gas sample measurements 

can be made that meet the acceptance criteria of this protocol. 

The refresh phase then purges the EC cells with CO-free air. The 

refresh phase replenishes requisite O2 and moisture in the 

electrolyte reserve and provides a mechanism to de-gas or desorb 

any interference gas scrubbers or filters so as to enable a 

stable CO EC cell response. There are four primary types of 

sampling runs: pre- sampling calibrations; stack gas sampling; 

post-sampling calibration checks; and measurement system 

repeatability checks. Stack gas sampling runs can be chained 

together for extended evaluations, providing all other 

procedural specifications are met. 
Page 184 of 197

3.10 Sampling Day. A time not to exceed twelve hours from the 

time of the pre-sampling calibration to the post-sampling 

calibration check. During this time, stack gas sampling runs can 

be repeated without repeated recalibrations, providing all other 

sampling specifications have been met. 

3.11 Pre-Sampling Calibration/Post-Sampling Calibration Check.

The protocols executed at the beginning and end of each sampling 

day to bracket measurement readings with controlled performance 

checks. 

3.12 Performance-Established Configuration. The EC cell and 

sampling system configuration that existed at the time that it 

initially met the performance requirements of this protocol. 

4.0 Interferences.

When present in sufficient concentrations, NO and NO2 are two gas 

species that have been reported to interfere with CO 

concentration measurements. In the likelihood of this 

occurrence, it is the protocol user’s responsibility to employ 

and properly maintain an appropriate CO EC cell filter or 

scrubber for removal of these gases, as described in Section 

6.2.12.

5.0 Safety. [Reserved]

6.0 Equipment and Supplies.

6.1 What equipment do I need for the measurement system? 
Page 185 of 197

The system must maintain the gas sample at conditions that will 

prevent moisture condensation in the sample transport lines, 

both before and as the sample gas contacts the EC cells. The 

essential components of the measurement system are described 

below. 

6.2 Measurement System Components. 

6.2.1 Sample Probe. A single extraction-point probe constructed 

of glass, stainless steel or other non-reactive material, and of 

length sufficient to reach any designated sampling point. The 

sample probe must be designed to prevent plugging due to 

condensation or particulate matter. 

6.2.2 Sample Line. Non-reactive tubing to transport the effluent 

from the sample probe to the EC cell. 

6.2.3 Calibration Assembly (optional). A three-way valve 

assembly or equivalent to introduce calibration gases at ambient 

pressure at the exit end of the sample probe during calibration 

checks. The assembly must be designed such that only stack gas 

or calibration gas flows in the sample line and all gases flow 

through any gas path filters. 

6.2.4 Particulate Filter (optional). Filters before the inlet of 

the EC cell to prevent accumulation of particulate material in 

the measurement system and extend the useful life of the 

components. All filters must be fabricated of materials that are 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 
Page 186 of 197

6.2.5 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump to provide undiluted sample 

gas to the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the 

response time of the measurement system. If located upstream of 

the EC cells, the pump must be constructed of a material that is 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.8 Sample Flow Rate Monitoring. An adjustable rotameter or 

equivalent device used to adjust and maintain the sample flow 

rate through the analyzer as prescribed. 

6.2.9 Sample Gas Manifold (optional). A manifold to divert a 

portion of the sample gas stream to the analyzer and the 

remainder to a by-pass discharge vent. The sample gas manifold 

may also include provisions for introducing calibration gases 

directly to the analyzer. The manifold must be constructed of a 

material that is non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.10 EC cell. A device containing one or more EC cells to 

determine the CO and O2 concentrations in the sample gas stream. 

The EC cell(s) must meet the applicable performance 

specifications of Section 13 of this protocol. 

6.2.11 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or 

digital recorder to make a record of analyzer output data. The 

data recorder resolution (i.e., readability) must be no greater 

than 1 ppm for CO; 0.1 percent for O2; and one degree (either o

C 

or o

F) for temperature. Alternatively, you may use a digital or 
Page 187 of 197

analog meter having the same resolution to observe and manually 

record the analyzer responses. 

6.2.12 Interference Gas Filter or Scrubber. A device to remove 

interfering compounds upstream of the CO EC cell. Specific 

interference gas filters or scrubbers used in the performanceestablished configuration of the analyzer must continue to be 

used. Such a filter or scrubber must have a means to determine 

when the removal agent is exhausted. Periodically replace or 

replenish it in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

6.2.13 EC Cell Temperature Device. A temperature measurement 

device (e.g., thermocouple, thermistor or equivalent) to monitor 

EC cell temperature. The temperature may be monitored within or 

at the surface of a cell, or in close proximity to the cells so 

as to indicate the operating temperature of the cells. Do not 

operate the analyzer outside the manufacturer’s recommended 

operating temperature range.

7.0 Reagents and Standards. What calibration gases are needed?

7.1 Calibration Gases. CO calibration gases for the EC cell must 

be CO in nitrogen or CO in a mixture of nitrogen and O2. Use CO 

calibration gases with labeled concentration values certified by 

the manufacturer to be within ± 5 percent of the label value. 

Dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) is acceptable for calibration 
Page 188 of 197

of the O2 cell. If needed, any lower percentage O2 calibration 

gas must be a mixture of O2 in nitrogen. 

7.1.1 Up-Scale CO Calibration Gas Concentration. 

Choose one or more up-scale gas concentrations such that the 

average of the stack gas measurements for each stack gas 

sampling run are between 25 and 150 percent of those 

concentrations. Alternatively, choose an up-scale gas that does 

not exceed twice the concentration of the applicable outlet 

standard. If a measured gas value exceeds 150 percent of the upscale CO calibration gas value at any time during the stack gas 

sampling run, the run must be discarded and repeated. 

7.1.2 Up-Scale O2 Calibration Gas Concentration.

Select an O2 gas concentration such that the difference between 

the gas concentration and the average stack gas measurement or 

reading for each sample run is less than 15 percent O2. When the 

average exhaust gas O2 readings are above 6 percent, you may use 

dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) for the up-scale O2 calibration 

gas.

7.1.3 Zero Gas. Use an inert gas that contains less than 0.25 

percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration. You 

may use dry air that is free from ambient CO and other 

combustion gas products (e.g., CO2).

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis

8.1 Selection of Sampling Sites. 
Page 189 of 197

8.1.1 Control Device Inlet. Select a sampling site sufficiently 

downstream of the engine so that the combustion gases should be 

well mixed. Use a single sampling extraction point near the 

center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent centroidal 

area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.1.2 Exhaust Gas Outlet. Select a sampling site located at 

least two stack diameters downstream of any disturbance (e.g., 

turbocharger exhaust, crossover junction or recirculation takeoff) and at least one-half stack diameter upstream of the gas 

discharge to the atmosphere. Use a single sampling extraction 

point near the center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent 

centroidal area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.2 Stack Gas Collection and Analysis. Prior to the first stack 

gas sampling run, conduct that the pre-sampling calibration in 

accordance with Section 10.1. Use Figure 1 to record all data. 

Zero the analyzer with zero gas. Confirm and record that the 

scrubber media color is correct and not exhausted. Then position 

the probe at the sampling point and begin the sampling run at 

the same flow rate used during the up-scale calibration. Record 

the start time. Record all EC cell output responses, the EC cell 

temperature, and the flow rate during the “sample conditioning 

phase” once per minute until constant readings are obtained. 

Then begin the “measurement data phase” and record readings 

every 15 seconds for at least two minutes (or eight readings), 
Page 190 of 197

or as otherwise required to achieve two continuous minutes of 

data that meet the specification given in Section 13.1. Finally, 

perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, free from CO 

and other combustion gases, until several minute-to-minute 

readings of consistent value have been obtained. For each run 

use the “measurement data phase” readings to calculate the 

average stack gas CO and O2 concentrations.

8.3 EC Cell Temperature. During each stack gas sampling run, 

measure and record the temperature of the EC cells. The 

temperature during each run must not vary more than ± 10°F. The 

overall EC cell temperature variation must be less than ± 20°F 

from the pre-sampling calibration to the final post-sampling 

calibration check. 

8.4 EC Cell Flow Rate. Maintain the EC cell sample flow rate so 

that it does not vary by more than ± 10 percent throughout the 

pre-sampling calibration, stack gas sampling and post-sampling 

calibration check. Alternatively, the EC cell sample flow rate 

can be maintained within a tolerance range that does not affect 

the gas concentration readings by more than ± 3 percent, as 

instructed by the EC cell manufacturer. 

9.0 Quality Control (Reserved)

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Pre-Sampling Calibration. Conduct the following protocol 

once for each nominal range to be used on each EC cell before 
Page 191 of 197

performing a stack gas sampling run on each field sampling day. 

Repeat the calibration if you replace an EC cell before 

completing all of the sampling runs. There is no prescribed 

order for calibration of the EC cells; however, each cell must 

complete the measurement data phase during calibration. Assemble 

the measurement system by following the manufacturer's 

recommended protocols including for preparing and 

preconditioning the EC cell. Assure the measurement system has 

no leaks and verify the gas scrubbing agent is not depleted. Use 

Figure 1 to record all data. 

10.1.1 Zero Calibration. For both the O2 and CO cells, introduce 

zero gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the concentration reading every minute 

until readings are constant for at least two consecutive 

minutes. Include the time, EC cell temperature, and sample flow 

rate. Repeat the steps in this section at least once to verify 

the zero calibration for each component gas. 

10.1.2 Zero Calibration Tolerance. For each zero gas 

introduction, the zero level output must be less than or equal 

to ± 3 percent of the up-scale gas value or ± 1 ppm, whichever 

is less restrictive, for the CO channel and less than or equal 

to ± 0.3 percent O2 for the O2 channel. 

10.1.3 Up-Scale Calibration. Individually introduce each 

calibration gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the 
Page 192 of 197

calibration assembly) and record the start time. Record all EC 

cell output responses, the EC cell temperature, and the flow 

rate during this “sample conditioning phase” once per minute 

until readings are constant for at least two minutes. Then begin 

the “measurement data phase” and record readings every 15 

seconds for a total of two minutes, or as otherwise required. 

Finally, perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, 

free from CO and other combustion gases, until readings are 

constant for at least two consecutive minutes. Then repeat the 

steps in this section at least once to verify the calibration 

for each component gas. Introduce all gases to flow through the 

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

sampling probe or the calibration assembly). 

10.1.4 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference of 

the “measurement data phase” readings from the reported standard 

gas value must be less than or equal to ± 5 percent or ± 1 ppm 

for CO or ± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, 

respectively. The maximum allowable deviation from the mean 

measured value of any single "measurement data phase" reading 

must be less than or equal to ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or 

± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, respectively. 

10.2 Post-Sampling Calibration Check. Conduct a stack gas postsampling calibration check after the stack gas sampling run or 

set of runs and within 12 hours of the initial calibration. 
Page 193 of 197

Conduct up-scale and zero calibration checks using the protocol 

in Section 10.1. Make no changes to the sampling system or EC 

cell calibration until all post-sampling calibration checks have 

been recorded. If either the zero or up-scale calibration error 

exceeds the respective specification in Sections 10.1.2 and 

10.1.4 then all measurement data collected since the previous 

successful calibrations are invalid and re-calibration and resampling are required. If the sampling system is disassembled or 

the EC cell calibration is adjusted, repeat the calibration 

check before conducting the next analyzer sampling run. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

The analytical procedure is fully discussed in Section 8.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

Determine the CO and O2 concentrations for each stack gas 

sampling run by calculating the mean gas concentrations of the 

data recorded during the “measurement data phase”. 

13.0 Protocol Performance

Use the following protocols to verify consistent analyzer 

performance during each field sampling day. 

13.1 Measurement Data Phase Performance Check. Calculate the 

mean of the readings from the “measurement data phase”. The 

maximum allowable deviation from the mean for each of the 

individual readings is ± 2 percent, or ± 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. Record the mean value and maximum deviation 
Page 194 of 197

for each gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 10.1.4. The 

EC cell temperature and EC cell flow rate must conform to the 

specifications in Section 8.3 and 8.4 respectively. 

Example: A measurement data phase is invalid if the maximum 

deviation of any single reading comprising that mean is greater 

than ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm (the default criteria). For example, 

if the mean = 30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and above 

31 ppm are disallowed).

13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial use of the EC cell 

and interference gas scrubber in the field, and semi-annually 

thereafter, challenge the interference gas scrubber with an NO2

gas standard that is generally recognized as representative of 

diesel-fueled engine NO2 emission values. Record the response 

displayed by the CO EC cell and other pertinent data on Figure 1 

or a similar form. 

13.2.1 Interference Response. The CO interference response 

should be less than or equal to ± 5 percent of the up-scale CO 

calibration gas concentration. 

13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the following check once for 

each nominal range that is to be used on the CO EC cell within 

five days prior to each field sampling program. If a field 

sampling program lasts longer than five days, repeat this check 

every five days. Immediately repeat the check if the EC cell is 

replaced or if the EC cell is exposed to gas concentrations 
Page 195 of 197

greater than 150 percent of the highest up-scale gas 

concentration.

13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. Perform a complete EC cell 

sampling run (all three phases) by introducing the CO 

calibration gas to the measurement system and record the 

response. Follow Section 10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all 

data. Repeat the run three times for a total of four complete 

runs. During the four repeatability check runs, do not adjust 

the system except where necessary to achieve the correct 

calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer.

13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. Determine the highest 

and lowest average “measurement data phase” CO concentrations 

from the four repeatability check runs and record the results on 

Figure 1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the difference 

between the maximum and minimum average values recorded must not 

vary more than ± 3 percent or ± 1 ppm of the up-scale gas value, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved)

15.0 Waste Management (Reserved) 

16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved) 

17.0 References

(1) “Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer 

Test Protocol”, Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission 

Monitoring, Inc., July 1997. 
Page 196 of 197

(2) “Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and 

Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and 

Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers”, EMC Conditional Test 

Protocol 30 (CTM-30), Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI96/0008, Revision 7, October 13, 1997. 

(3) "ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic Monitoring”, EMC 

Conditional Test Protocol 34 (CTM-034), The Institute of Clean 

Air Companies, September 8, 1999. 

(4) “Code of Federal Regulations”, Protection of Environment, 

40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1-4; 10. 

Table 1: Appendix A - Sampling Run Data. 

Facility________________ Engine I.D.______________ Date_________ 

 Run Type: (__) (__) (__) (__) 

 (X) Pre-Sample Stack Gas Post-Sample Repeatability 

 Calibration Sample Cal. Check Check 

 

Run # 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Time Scrub. 

OK 

FlowRate 

Gas O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO 

 

Sample 

Cond. 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

Measurement 

Data 

Phase 

 

“ 
Page 197 of 197

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

 Mean 

 

Refresh 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under EO 13563 review 

Page 1 of 4

Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 13563 review of the draft

rule “Reconsideration of Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.”  They are subject to further policy review.

Compliance Date Extension and Tier 3 Requirements

Commenters support EPA’s proposal to specify that any existing certified CI engine above 300

HP at an area source of HAP emissions that was certified to meet the Tier 3 engine

standards and was installed before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP.  This

proposal is a common‐sense approach to rectify the inconsistency in the current RICE

MACT regarding these engines that represent some of the earliest adopters of clean engine

technology.

Commenters support EPA’s proposal to extend the compliance date for existing stationary Tier

1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines located at area sources that are subject to state and locally

enforceable requirements requiring replacement of the engine by January 1, 2018, and

requiring these engines to meet management practices until either the compliance date or

the date these engines are replaced and they also appreciate EPA’s proposal to offer a two‐

year extension of the compliance date for these engines and believes that an extension is

appropriate.   

However, commenters request that EPA provide an extension equivalent to the San Joaquin

Valley Air Pollution Control District regulatory timeline previously approved by EPA in the

California SIP for these engines (i.e., replacement by either January 1, 2015 or 12 years

after the installation date of the engine, but no later than June 1, 2018).  The agricultural

producers associated with these engines have worked collaboratively with EPA, the San

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and USDA NRCS to establish a reasonable

timeframe for replacing these engines with the most technologically‐advanced clean

engine technology and have relied upon the agreement between these parties in

developing their business and personal capital investment plans to include expeditious

replacement of these engines.  Requiring these producers, who have already committed to

replacing these engines in a relatively short timeframe in the face of more stringent air

quality regulatory requirements than their peers nationally and most of the rest of the

world, to stretch their ability to make such capital investments even further and quicker in

this period of economic stagnation does impose an unnecessary financial hardship.  Many

of these producers will also look to USDA‐NRCS for financial assistance to help fund the

already‐required replacement of these engines and given the current Federal agency

budget climate, USDA’s ability to provide the appropriate assistance in the next few years

may be hampered.  California NRCS has funded this type of engine replacement at a cost

ranging from $19,000 per engine for 300‐399 hp engines to $45,000 per engine for >600 hp

engines, putting a rough cost estimate of between $7.8‐18.4 million as the potential USDA

funding amount for helping to replace these 409 engines.  Producer out‐of‐pocket costs

would be additional to and equal to or greater than the USDA funding amount.  Given that

Federal budgets are being reduced significantly overall and also given that the existing
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under EO 13563 review 

Page 2 of 4

Farm Bill (which contains authorization for specific funding related to improving air quality)

is set to expire in September with no new Farm Bill yet passed nor any guarantee that

specific air quality funding will be re‐authorized, it seems prudent to allow a greater

timeframe for both producers and USDA to plan for this significant expenditure.  

Commenters  also note that aligning the compliance date with the dates specified in the

California SIP will actually cause a portion of these engines to come into compliance with

the RICE MACT prior to EPA’s proposed new compliance date of May 3, 2015.

Emergency Demand Response Programs

We agree with EPA’s expansion of the current rule from 15 hours to 100 hours for annual

operation of emergency engines, including the necessary testing and maintenance.    

We understand that units may turn on engines before a declaration of a formal declaration of

emergency.  In this event, EPA should consider a de minimis allowance in the event a

declaration is not eventually declared.  We wouldn’t want emergency engines to become non‐

emergency engines simply because someone failed to make an official declaration.   

In addition,  EPA should provide an allowance for peak shaving for economic reasons for small

systems for 50 hours annually (or some other de minimis amount) beyond that 2017 temporary

extension for the areas that are in attainment with PM and ozone standards.   Total engine use

would still be limited to 100 hours, including testing and maintenance, and use as part of the

emergency demand  response program.   

The original RICE MACT Rule for >500 hp still contains an exemption for limited use RICE of up

to 100 hours.  Could this limited use exemption for major sources be applied to peak shaving

engines at area sources at least until EPA goes back and reviews the original limited use

exemption for major sources for the largest engines?

Compliance Date for Reconsideration Engines

For the engines under reconsideration, EPA should propose an additional year past May and

October 2013, because it will be difficult for the affected businesses to plan and acquire

financing for retrofits under an accelerated schedule.     It is already April 2012, and EPA is at

least months away from finalizing these requirements.    At a minimum, EPA should state that it

will consider using a blanket extension for all such engines that require retrofits if it takes more

than a few months to finalize the requirements, and also encourage states to consider the case‐

by‐case extensions where need.    An extension will not be needed for engines subject only to

work practices.

Use of DOT’s Class Location and Regulatory Approach for Remote Engines
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under EO 13563 review 

Page 3 of 4

Commenters support EPA’s proposal that existing 4‐stroke SI engines above 500 hp at an area

source of HAP emissions that are considered to be remote from human activity only have to

meet management practices instead of emissions limits.  Since the purpose of MACT standards

is to reduce public exposure to hazardous air pollutants, it seems reasonable that those engines

that are located at area sources and are not in close proximity to people will have less of an

impact on the human population and should therefore not be subject to the same stringent

requirements as those engines that are more likely to impact humans.  However, commenters

believe that requiring these engines to review the remoteness criteria every year may be

excessive.  It would seem that many of these larger engines are likely already covered under a

Title V operating permit (typically a five‐year permit term), and aligning the requirement to

review the remoteness criteria consistent with the permit term would seem to provide

greater regulatory certainty for the owner/operator of such an engine.  Verification every year

that the units are still remote units is unnecessarily burdensome, particularly for small

businesses. Again, a once every five year requirement, or for the applicable permit term, would

be adequate.

In using DOT’s class location definition found in 49 C.F.R. § 192.5, we would recommend that

EPA make it clear that for DOT pipeline safety purposes, class location only applies to natural

gas pipelines.  Since EPA’s proposed emissions rule applies to both natural gas and hazardous

liquid pipelines, hazardous liquid pipeline operators using the types of internal combustion

engines subject to EPA’s regulations would need to conduct class location surveys and make

class location determinations for the first time to meet the EPA requirements.

  

In referencing DOT’s class location regulations, we would suggest that EPA cite to the current

CFR publication and year in case future changes to the DOT’s pipeline regulations to some

extent eliminates the class location system from DOT use.  This is a potential outcome of the

Congressional study required by section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job

Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112‐90).  

EPA states that one of the justifications for the amendment is that requiring controls for

sparsely populated areas is not cost effective as originally thought, yet the RIA seems to assume

no difference in control costs based on geographic location.  Can EPA revise the cost numbers

to reflect the increased cost of controls in sparsely populated areas, or, if not, at least provide

a more robust discussion of the limits of the RIA analysis that addresses this inconsistency?

EPA states that the subcategorization is justified in part because health can be adequately

protected in sparsely populated areas.  Does EPA have quantitative information to support this

assertion? Can EPA also better reconcile the apparent contradiction of this approach with the

assumption of identical benefits per ton for all geographic areas in the RIA?

EO 12898 states, “...each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low‐income populations.”
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under EO 13563 review 

Page 4 of 4

By exempting RICE in sparsely populated areas from emissions controls, and thereby increasing

emissions from these sources, relative to what they would otherwise be, it would seem that

this action could potentially raise EJ concerns (if, for example, low‐income people are more

likely to live in sparsely populated areas). It would be helpful if EPA could provide some analysis

to identify whether this adverse health or environmental effect could disproportionately affect

minority or low‐income populations.

CI Engines > 300 HP Area Source

Using the same logic for this proposal for SI engines and to promote consistency within the

rule, commenters suggest that it is also appropriate to provide similar relief for remote CI

engines above 300 hp at an area source of HAP emissions and requests that EPA include

such relief in the proposal.  If there are no people living nearby, this additional expense of

retrofitting an existing area source engine is not warranted.  Since area sources are covered

only by GACT, EPA is fully authorized to consider the costs and benefits of this additional

requirement.  The retrofit costs of these engines can be considerable for small agricultural

producers.    

RIA and Preamble ‐ Choice of Baseline

OMB Circular A‐4 states, “The baseline represents the agency’s best assessment of what the

world would be like absent the action....For analyses supporting modifications to an existing

regulation, a baseline assuming no change in the regulatory program generally provides an

appropriate basis for evaluating regulatory alternatives.”

It seems that instead of choosing no change in the 2010 RICE rule as the baseline, EPA is using

the absence of the 2020 rule as the baseline.   We would like to better understand EPA’s choice

of baseline, and discuss the feasibility of adding an analysis of incremental costs and benefits

relative to 2010 rule as a substitute for, or supplement to, the current approach.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/08/2012 09:01 AM 

Subject: RICE CI rule -- RIA

Hi, 

Attached are the redline and comments on the employment section of the CI RICE RIA. We also request that 

conforming changes be made in the SI RIA. 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

(See attached file: EO_12866_RICE_NESHAP_Compression_Ignition_Engines_RIA_proposal_2060-

AQ58_2012versionInteragencyComments582012.docx)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE Compression Ignition Engines RIA 2060-

AQ58 Proposal 20120315 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Proposed 

Reconsideration of Existing Stationary 

Compression Ignition (CI) Engines 

NESHAP 

Draft Report 
This page is intentionally blank. 
 April 2012 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Proposed Reconsideration of Existing Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines NESHAP 

By: 

Paramita Sinha, Brooks Depro, and Fern Braun 

RTI International 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

Prepared for: 

Larry Sorrels 

Contract No. EP-D-06-003 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division 

Air Economics Group 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

 

 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

for Proposed Reconsideration of 

Existing Stationary Compression 

Ignition Engines NESHAP 

Draft Report

April 2012 

Prepared for 

Larry Sorrels 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

Air Economics Group (AEG) 

(MD-C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Prepared by 

Paramita Sinha 

Brooks Depro 

Fern Braun 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
iii 

CONTENTS 

Section Page

Section 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................. 1-1

Section 2 Introduction .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Organization of this Report .................................................................................. 2-1

Section 3 Industry Profile ........................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Goods and Services Used ......................................................................... 3-4

3.1.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................... 3-5

3.2 Oil and Gas Extraction ......................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.2 Goods and Services Used ....................................................................... 3-10

3.2.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................. 3-11

3.3 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................................................. 3-16

3.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-16

3.3.2 Goods and Services Used ....................................................................... 3-17

3.4 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ............................................................ 3-21

3.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-21

3.4.2 Goods and Services Used ....................................................................... 3-21

3.4.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................. 3-23

3.5 Irrigation Sets and Welding Equipment ............................................................. 3-25

3.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-25

3.5.2 Irrigation and Welding Services ............................................................ 3-26

3.5.3 Business Statistics .................................................................................. 3-31

Section 4 Regulatory Alternatives, Costs, and Emission Impacts ........................... 4-1

4.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Summary of the Proposed Reconsideration Rule ................................................ 4-2
iv 

4.2.2 What Are the Pollutants Regulated by this Proposed 

Reconsideration Rule? ........................................................................... 4-15

4.3 Cost Impacts....................................................................................................... 4-16

4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 4-16

4.3.2 Major Sources ........................................................................................ 4-20

4.3.3 Area Sources .......................................................................................... 4-22

Section 5 Economic Impact Analysis, Energy Impacts, and Social Costs .............. 5-1

5.1 Compliance Costs of the Final Rule .................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Social Cost Estimate .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.3 How Might People and Firms Respond? A Partial Equilibrium Analysis .......... 5-5

5.3.1 Changes in Market Prices and Quantities ................................................ 5-5

5.3.2 Regulated Markets: The Electric Power Generation, Transmission, 

and Distribution Sector ............................................................................ 5-7

5.3.3 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer 

and Producer Surplus ............................................................................... 5-8

5.4 Energy Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-9

5.5 Unfunded Mandates ........................................................................................... 5-10

5.5.1 Future and Disproportionate Costs ........................................................ 5-11

5.5.2 Effects on the National Economy .......................................................... 5-11

5.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................ 5-12

5.7 Employment Impact Analysis ............................................................................ 5-11 

5.7.1 Employment Impacts from Pollution Control Requirements5-13 5.7.2Employment Impacts within the Regu

Section 6 Small Entity Screening Analysis ............................................................. 6-1

6.1 Small Entity Data Set ........................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Small Entity Economic Impact Measures ............................................................ 6-2

6.2.1 Model Establishment Receipts and Annual Compliance Costs ............... 6-2

6.3 Small Government Entities ................................................................................ 6-12

Deleted: 4-17

Deleted: 4-17

Deleted: 5-9

Deleted: 5-10

Deleted: 5-12

Deleted: 5-12

Deleted: 5-13

Deleted: 5-18
v 

Section 7 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions ................................... 7-1

7.1 Calculation of PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits .................................. 7-1

7.2 Unquantified Benefits ........................................................................................ 7-15

7.2.1 HAP Benefits ............................................................................................ 7-15

 

7.2.2 Ozone Co-Benefits ................................................................................. 7-26

7.2.3 Carbon Monoxide Co-Benefits .............................................................. 7-26

7.2.4 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits ........................................................ 7-26

7.3 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized Co-Benefits ........................ 7-27

7.4 Comparison of Co-Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 7-32

7.5 References .......................................................................................................... 7-36

Section 8 References ................................................................................................ 8-1
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Page

3-1. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 2211) ................................................................ 3-3

3-2. Internal Combustion Generators by State: 2006 ......................................................... 3-4

3-3. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution Industry (NAICS 2211) ............................................ 3-5

3-4. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 211) .................................................................. 3-1

3-5. Distribution of Establishments within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) .......... 3-17

3-6. Distribution of Revenue within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) .................... 3-17

3-7. Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas Industry (NAICS 48621): 2002 ................................ 3-19

3-8. Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the General Medical 

and Surgical Hospitals Industry (NAICS 6221): 2002 .............................................. 3-24

3-9. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 333111) .......................................................... 3-28

5-1. Distribution of Annualized Direct Compliance Costs by Industry: 2013 ................... 5-2

5-2. Distribution of Engine Population by Horsepower Group: 2013 ................................ 5-3

5-3. Average Annualized Cost per Engine by Horsepower Group: 2013 ($2007) ............. 5-3

5-4. Market Demand and Supply Model: With and Without Regulation ........................... 5-6

5-5. Electricity Restructuring by State ................................................................................ 5-9

7-1. Breakdown of Monetized PM2.5 Health Co-benefits using Mortality Function 

from Pope et al. (2002) .............................................................................................. 7-10

7-2. Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed CI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration in 2013 ............................................................................................ 7-14

7-3. Breakdown of Total Monetized Co-benefits for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration by Engine Size...................................................7-15 

7-4. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from 

outdoor sources (2005 NATA) .................................................................................. 7-17

7-5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory)Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA).............. ....................................... 7-17

7-6. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline..............................................................................7-29 

7-7 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure 

in the Baseline........................................................................7-29 

7-8. Net Benefits for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration 

 at 3% discount rate..................................................................7-33 
vii 

7-9. Net Benefits for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration 

 at 7% discount rate..................................................................7-34 
viii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Page

3-1. Key Statistics: Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

(NAICS 2211) ($2007) ................................................................................................ 3-2

3-2. Direct Requirements for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2007 ............................................................................... 3-5

3-3. Firm Concentration for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 ............................................................................... 3-7

3-4. United States Retail Electricity Sales Statistics: 2008 ................................................ 3-8

3-5. FY 2010 Financial Data for 70 U.S. Shareholder-Owned Electric Utilities ............. 3-10

3-6. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 2211 ..................... 3-10

3-7. Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2007 ............................................... 3-11 

3-8. Key Statistics: Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111): 

($2007) ...................................................................................................................... 3-11

3-9. Key Statistics: Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112) ($2007) ................ 3-12

3-10. Direct Requirements for Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211): 2002 ...................... 3-12

3-11. Key Statistics for Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 

211111): 2007 ............................................................................................................ 3-13

3-12. Key Statistics for Crude Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112): 2007 .... 3-13

3-13. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 211 ....................... 3-14

3-14. Key Statistics: Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 48621) ($2007) .... 3-15

3-15. Direct Requirements for Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486): 2002 ..................... 3-17

3-16. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 486 ....................... 3-19

3-17 Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for Pipeline Transportation of 

Natural Gas (NAICS 48621): 2007 ........................................................................... 3-20

3-18. Key Statistics: General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS 6221) ($2007) .... 3-23

3-19. Direct Requirements for Hospitals (NAICS 622): 2002 ........................................... 3-23

3-20. Data for General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS 6221): 2007 ................. 3-24

3-21. Hospital Statistics: 2010 ............................................................................................ 3-25

3-22. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/05–6/06: NAICS 622-4 .................... 3-25

3-23. Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for General Medical and Surgical 

Hospitals (NAICS 6221): 2007 ($2007) ................................................................... 3-27

3-24. Key Statistics: Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

333111) ($2007) ........................................................................................................ 3-28

3-25. Key Statistics: Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

333992) ($2007) ........................................................................................................ 3-29

3-26. Expenses per Acre by Type of Energy: 2008 ............................................................ 3-30
ix 

3-27. Number of On-Farm Pumps of Irrigation Water by Type of Energy: 2003 and 

2008 ........................................................................................................................... 3-30

3-28. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/05–6/06: NAICS 3331 and 3339 ...... 3-31

3-29. Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for Heavy Construction: 2007 ................ 3-34

4-1. CI RICE Control Technologies and Costs .................................................................. 4-9

4-2. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP ....... 4-24

4-3. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE 

NESHAP ................................................................................................................... 4-25

4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE 

NESHAP – by Size .................................................................................................... 4-26

4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE 

NESHAP – by Number of Engines ........................................................................... 4-29 

4-6. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Emissions for the CI RICE 

NESHAP – 2013 ...........................................................................4-36 

4-7. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Emission Reductions for the CI RICE 

NESHAP – by 2013 ...........................................................................4-36 

5-1. Selected Industry-Level Annualized Compliance Costs as a Fraction of Total 

Industry Revenue: 2008 ............................................................................................... 5-4

5-2. Hypothetical Price Increases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs .................................... 5-7

5-3. Hypothetical Consumption Decreases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs ..................... 5-8

5-4. U.S. Electric Powera Sector Energy Consumption (Quadrillion BTUs): 2013 ......... 5-11

5-5 Labor-based Employment Estimates for Reporting and Recordkeeping and Installing, 

Operating, and Maintaining Control Equipment Requirements for Proposed 

Reconsideration CI RICE NESHAP......................................................5-16 

6-1. Final NESHAP for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE): Affected Sectors and SBA Small Business Size Standards ............. 6-3

6-2. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise: 2007 ($2008 

Million/establishment) ................................................................................................. 6-5

6-3. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise Receipt Range: 2007 

($2008 /establishment) ................................................................................................ 6-6

6-4. Representative Establishment Costs Used for Small Entity Analysis ($2008) ........... 6-8

7-1. Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM2.5 .............................................................. 7-1

7-2. Summary of Monetized Co-benefits Estimates for RICE NESHAP for 

Compression Ignition in 2013 (2008$) ..................................................................... 7-11

7-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 Co-benefits for RICE 

NESHAP in 2013 ...................................................................................................... 7-12

Deleted: 5-12
x 

7-4 All PM2.5 Co-benefits Estimates for the RICE NESHAP at discount rates of 3% 

and 7% in 2013 (in millions of 2008$) ...................................................................... 7-13

7-5. Summary of the Annualized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Proposed Reconsidered CI RICE NESHAP in 2013 ................................................. 7-32 
1-1 

SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The EPA estimates that complying with the proposed reconsideration of the stationary 

compression ignition (CI) reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) rule will have an 

annualized cost of approximately $372 million per year (2008 dollars) or $373 million per year 

(2010 dollars) in the year of full implementation of the rule (2013). Using these costs, EPA 

estimates in its economic impact analysis that the NESHAP will have limited impacts on the 

industries affected and their consumers. Using sales data obtained for affected small entities in 

an analysis of the impacts of this proposal on small entities, EPA expects that the NESHAP will 

not result in a SISNOSE (significant economic impacts for a substantial number of small 

entities). EPA also does not expect significant adverse energy impacts based on Executive Order 

13211, an Executive Order that requires analysis of energy impacts for rules such as this one that 

are economically significant under Executive Order 12866. All of these analysis results are 

practically identical to the results for the CI RICE NESHAP when it was promulgated in March 

2010. 

The RICE rule is also considered subject to the requirements of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Circular A-4 because EPA expects that either the benefits 

or the costs are potentially $1 billion or higher. EPA estimates the total monetized co-benefits of 

the NESHAP to be $770 million to $1.9 billion (2010$) at a 3% discount rate and $690 million 

to $1.7 billion at a 7% discount rate in the year of full implementation of the rule (2013). The net 

benefits of the proposed CI RICE reconsideration are therefore $400 million to $1.5 billion at a 

3% discount rate and $320 million to $1.3 billion at a 7% discount rate (in 2010$) in 2013. 

These estimates are shown in Table 1-1. These co-benefit estimates are lower than those for the 

rule promulgated two years ago. The previous co-benefit estimates were $940 million to $2,300 

million (2008 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $850 million to $2,100 million (2008 

dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. The previous estimates will be greater in a nominal (not 

inflation-adjusted) sense if shown in 2010 dollars, and thus the reduction in the benefits for the 

reconsidered rule compared to the benefits for the 2010 final rule will therefore be greater. EPA 

believes that the benefits are likely to exceed the annualized costs by a substantial margin under 

this rulemaking even when taking into account uncertainties in the cost and benefit estimates. 

These estimates are “snapshots” of benefits and costs at year 2013. 
1-2 

Table 1-1. Summary of the Annualized Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net 

Benefits for the Proposed Reconsidered CI RICE NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010$)1

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Total Monetized Benefits2 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance Costs3 $373 $373 

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

Non-monetized Benefits 

Health effects from HAP exposure 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC emissions 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

1

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

2

 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors such as directly emitted fine particles. Human health benefits are shown as a range 

from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated 

using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components here. 

See Figure 7-1 for an illustration of the breakdown, or the RIA for the final Cross-States Air Pollution Rule (EPA, 

2011) for more information. 3 The annual compliance costs serve as a proxy for the annual social costs of this rule given the lack of difference 

between the two. The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate. These costs are 

$372 million in 2008 dollars. 
SECTION 2

INTRODUCTION 

EPA is proposing reconsideration of national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary compression ignition (CI) reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) that either are located at area sources of hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions or that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower (HP) 

and are located at major sources of HAP The proposed amendments to the CI RICE NESHAP 

are provided in detail in Section 4 of this RIA. 

The rule is economically significant according to Executive Order 12866. As part of the 

regulatory process of preparing these standards, EPA has prepared a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA). This analysis includes an analysis of impacts to small entities as part of compliance with 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and an analysis of impacts 

on energy consumption and production to comply with Executive Order 13211 (Statement of 

Energy Effects). An analysis of economic impacts, along with an analysis of impacts on 

employment, is also included in this RIA. Finally, an analysis of the benefits of the rule is 

included in this RIA. It should be noted that the data that supports the analyses listed above have 

been updated where possible and appropriate from the data used in the RIA for the CI RICE 

NESHAP promulgated in March 2010. 

2.1 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report supports and details the methodology and the results of the 

RIA: 

 Section 3 presents a profile of the affected industries. 

 Section 4 presents a summary of the proposed amendments to the proposed rule, and 

provides the compliance costs and emission reductions estimated for the rule. 

 Section 5 describes the estimated costs of the regulation and describes the EIA 

methodology and reports market, welfare, energy, and employment impacts. 

 Section 6 presents estimated impacts on small entities. 

 Section 7 presents the benefits and net benefits (benefits – costs) estimates. 
SECTION 3

INDUSTRY PROFILE 

Stationary CI engines almost always operate as lean burn engines. They can be 

configured as either two-stroke lean burn (2SLB) or 4-stroke lean burn (4SLB); the distinction is 

that CI engines are fueled by distillate fuel oil (diesel fuel), not by natural gas or any other 

gaseous fuel. Industries in which stationary CI engines are found are: 

 electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211), 

 oil and gas extraction (including marginal wells) (NAICS 211111), 

 pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 211112), 

 general medical and surgical hospitals (NAICS 622110), and 

 irrigation sets and welding equipment (NAICS 335312 and 333992). 

This section provides an introduction to the industries affected by the proposed 

reconsidered rule. The purpose is to give the reader a general understanding of the economic 

aspects of the industry; their relative size, relationships with other sectors in the economy, trends 

for the industries, and financial statistics. 

3.1 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

3.1.1 Overview 

Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) is an industry 

group within the utilities sector (NAICS 22). It includes establishments that produce electrical 

energy or facilitate its transmission to the final consumer. 

From 2002 to 2007, revenues from electric power grew about 18% to over $440 billion 

($2007) (Table 3-1). At the same time, payroll rose about 7.6% and the number of employees 

decreased by over 6%. The number of establishments rose by a little more than 2%, resulting in a 

increase in average establishment revenue of almost 24%. Industrial production within NAICS 

2211 has increased 25% since 1997 (Figure 3-1). 

Electric utility companies have traditionally been tightly regulated monopolies. Since 

1978, several laws and orders have been passed to encourage competition within the electricity 

market. In the late 1990s, many states began the process of restructuring their utility regulatory 

framework to support a competitive market. Following market manipulation in the early 2000s, 
however, several states have suspended their restructuring efforts. The majority (58%) of diesel 

power generators controlled by combined heat and power (CHP) or independent power 

producers are located in states undergoing active restructuring (Figure 3-2). 

Table 3-1. Key Statistics: Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

(NAICS 2211) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 373,309 440,342 

Payroll ($106) 40,842 43,266 

Employees 535,675 503,134 

Establishments 9,394 9,611 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and 

Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Size for the United States, All Industries: 2007. Statistics for U.S. 

Businesses. Found at http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2007.html. 
Figure 3-1. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 2211) 

 Source: The Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial Production” Series 

ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G2211.S <http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. 

(January 27, 2010). 

3.1.2 Goods and Services Used 

In Table 3-2, we use the latest detailed benchmark input-output data report by the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA) (2002) to identify the goods and services used in electric power 

generation. As shown, labor and tax requirements represent a significant share of the value of 

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

1997‐011997‐061997‐111998‐041998‐091999‐021999‐071999‐122000‐05

2000‐102001‐032001‐082002‐012002‐062002‐112003‐042003‐092004‐022004‐072004‐122005‐052005‐102006‐032006‐082007‐01

2007‐062007‐112008‐042008‐092009‐022009‐072009‐12

Index Value (Jan 2002=100)
Figure 3-2. Internal Combustion Generators by State: 2006 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. “2006 EIA-906/920 Monthly Time 

Series.” 

power generation. Extraction, transportation, refining, and equipment requirements potentially 

associated with reciprocating internal combustion engines (oil and gas extraction, pipeline 

transportation, petroleum refineries, and turbine manufacturing) represent around 10% of the 

value of services. 

3.1.3 Business Statistics 

The U.S. Economic Census and Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) programs provide 

national information on the distribution of economic variables by industry, location, and size of 

business. Throughout this section and report, we use the following definitions: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 

Diesel and Natural Gas Internal

Combustion Generators By State

No Restructuring

Suspended Restructuring

Active Restructuring

100

50

10

1
Table 3-2. Direct Requirements for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00100 Compensation of employees 20.52% 

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 13.71% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 6.16% 

212100 Coal mining 5.86% 

482000 Rail transportation 3.01% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 2.83% 

486000 Pipeline transportation 1.70% 

722000 Food services and drinking places 1.40% 

52A000 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 1.39% 

541100 Legal services 1.13% 

a

 These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

 Firm: A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic 

establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common 

ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for singleestablishment firms. For each multiestablishment firm, establishments in the same 

industry within a state are counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual 

payroll are summed from the associated establishments. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise; the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 

In 2002, Texas had almost 1,000 power establishments, while California, Georgia, and 

Ohio all had between 400 and 500 (Figure 3-3). Hawaii, Nebraska, and Rhode Island all had 

fewer than 20 establishments in their states. 
Figure 3-3. 2002 Regional Distribution of Establishments: Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution Industry (NAICS 2211) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: Utilities: 

Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics: 2002.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

As shown in Table 3-3, the four largest firms owned over 1,200 establishments and 

accounted for about 16% of total industry receipts/revenue. The 50 largest firms accounted for 

almost 6,000 establishments and about 78% of total receipts/revenue. 

Investor-owned energy providers accounted for 67.5% of retail electricity sold in the 

United States in 2006 (Table 3-4). In 2010, less regulated investor-owned electric utility 

companies were on average more profitable than companies with greater regulation (Table 3-5). 

In 2006, enterprises within NAICS 2211 had a pre-tax profit margin of only 0.9% (Table 3-6). 

3.2 Oil and Gas Extraction 

3.2.1 Overview 

Oil and gas extraction (NAICS 211) is an industry group within the mining sector 

(NAICS 21). It includes establishments that operate or develop oil and gas field properties 

Establishments by State

Less than 100

100 - 199

200 - 349

350 - 500

More than 500
Table 3-3. Firm Concentration for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution (NAICS 2211): 2002 

Commodity Establishments 

Receipts/Revenue 

Number of 

Employees 

Employees per 

Amount ($10 Establishment 6) 

Percentage 

of Total 

All firms 9,394 $325,028 100.0% 535,675 57 

4 largest firms 1,260 $52,349 16.1% 68,432 54 

8 largest firms 2,566 $95,223 29.3% 151,575 59 

20 largest firms 3,942 $173,207 53.3% 271,393 69 

50 largest firms 5,887 $253,015 77.8% 408,021 69 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: Utilities: 

Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by Largest Firms for the United States: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 2008). 

through such activities as exploring for oil and gas, drilling and equipping wells, operating onsite equipment, and conducting other activities up to the point of shipment from the property. 

Oil and gas extraction consists of two industries: crude petroleum and natural gas 

extraction (NAICS 211111) and natural gas liquid extraction (NAICS 211112). Crude petroleum 

and natural gas extraction is the larger industry; in 2007, it accounted for 93% of establishments 

and 75% of oil and gas extraction revenues. 

Industrial production in this industry is particularly sensitive to hurricanes in the Gulf 

Coast. In September of both 2005 and 2008, production dropped 14% from the previous month. 

From 2002 to 2007, revenues from crude petroleum and natural gas extraction (NAICS 

211111) nearly doubled to $194 billion ($2007) (Table 3-8). At the same time, payroll increased 

55% and the number of employees dropped by almost 40%. The number of establishments 

increased only slightly (1%); as a result, the average establishment revenue nearly doubled%. 

From 2002 to 2007, revenue from natural gas liquid extraction (NAICS 211112) grew 

over 19% to about $40 billion (Table 3-9). At the same time, payroll increased by only 1% and 

the number of employees dropped by almost 14%. The number of establishments dropped by 

over 59%, resulting in an increase of revenue per establishment of about 85%. 
3-9 

Table 3-4. United States Retail Electricity Sales Statistics: 2008 

Full-Service Providers Other Providers 

Item Investor-Owned Public Federal Cooperative Facility Energy Delivery Total Number of entities 3 62 1 25 1 NA NA 92 Number of retail customers 46,985 2,160,220 36 940,697 1 NA NA 3,147,939 Retail sales (103 megawatthours) 2,257 70,303 9,625 21,868 117 NA NA 104,170 Percentage of retail sales 2 67 9 21 0 — — 100 Revenue from retail sales ($106) 113 5,934 473 1,994 6 NA NA 8,520 Percentage of revenue 1.33 69.65 5.55 23.41 0.07 — — 100 Average retail price (cents/kWh) 5.01 8.44 4.91 9.12 5.25 NA NA 8.18 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. “State Electricity Profiles 2008.” DOE/EIA-0348(01)/2. p. 260. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2008.pdf>. 
3-10 

Table 3-5. FY 2010 Financial Data for 70 U.S. Shareholder-Owned Electric Utilities 

 Profit Margin Net Income Operating Revenues 

Investor-Owned Utilities 4.81% $27,728 $371,545 

Regulateda 6.80% $12,341 $158,657 

Mostly regulatedb

 8.50% $17,815 $175,218 

Diversifiedc

 -16.78% -$2,429 $37,671 

a 80%+ of total assets are regulated. 

b 50% to 80% of total assets are regulated. 

c Less than 50% of total assets are regulated. 

 Source: Edison Electric Institute. “Income Statement: Q4 2010 Financial Update. Quarterly Report of the U.S. 

Shareholder-Owned Electric Utility Industry.” <http://www.eei.org>. 

Table 3-6. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 2009: NAICS 2211 

Number of enterprisesa 1,187 

Total receipts (103) $323,522,443 

Net sales(103

) $328,017,143 

Profit margin before tax 3.1% 

Profit margin after tax 2.0% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2000–

2009.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 

3.2.2 Goods and Services Used 

The oil and gas extraction industry has similar labor and tax requirements as the electric 

power generation sector. Extraction, support, power, and equipment requirements potentially 

associated with reciprocating internal combustion engines (oil and gas extraction, support 

activities, electric power generation, machinery and equipment rental and leasing, and pipeline 

transportation) represent around 8% of the value of services (Table 3-10). 
3-11 

3.2.3 Business Statistics 

The U.S. Economic Census and SUSB programs provide national information on the 

distribution of economic variables by industry, location, and size of business. Throughout this 

section and report, we use the following definitions: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 
3-12 

Table 3-7. Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS 

2211): 2007 

Variable All Enterprises 

<20 

Employees 

20–99 

Employee s

100–499 

Employees 

500+ 

Employees 

Firms 1,687 630 670 251 136 

Establishments 9,611 687 1,110 999 6,815 Employment 503,134 3,622 31,455 42,527 425,530 

Receipts ($103) $440,342,284 $8,364,773 $21,825,969 $41,370,375 $368,781,167 

Receipts/firm ($103) $261,021 $13,277 $32,576 $164,822 $2,711,626 

Receipts/establishment ($103) $45,817 $12,176 $19,663 $41,412 $54,113 

Receipts/employment ($) $875 $2,309 $694 $973 $867 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb07.htm>. 
3-13 

Figure 3-4. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 211) 

 Source: The Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial Production” Series 

ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G211.S <http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. 

(January 27, 2010). 

Table 3-8. Key Statistics: Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111): 

($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 98,667 194,107 

Payroll ($106) 5,785 8,988 

Employees 94,886 133,286 

Establishments 7,178 7,221 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Factfinder Series: “2002 and 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 23, 

2012). 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

1997‐011997‐061997‐111998‐041998‐091999‐021999‐071999‐122000‐052000‐10

2001‐032001‐082002‐012002‐062002‐112003‐042003‐092004‐022004‐072004‐122005‐052005‐102006‐032006‐082007‐012007‐062007‐112008‐042008‐09

2009‐022009‐072009‐12

Index Value (Jan 2002=100)
3-14 

 Firm: A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic 

establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common 

ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for singleTable 3-9. Key Statistics: Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 33,579 39,978 

Payroll ($106) 607 617 

Employees 9,693 8,523 

Establishments 511 321 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2002 and 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 23, 2012). 

Table 3-10. Direct Requirements for Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 8.93% 

V00100 Compensation of employees 6.67% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 6.36% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 1.91% 

213112 Support activities for oil and gas operations 1.51% 

221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1.47% 

541300 Architectural, engineering, and related services 1.24% 

532400 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing 1.20% 

33291A Valve and fittings other than plumbing 1.10% 

541511 Custom computer programming services 0.99% 

a

 These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

establishment firms. For each multiestablishment firm, establishments in the same 

industry within a state are counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual 

payroll are summed from the associated establishments. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise; the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 
3-15 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 

As of 2007, there were 6,563 firms within the NAICS 211111 code, of which 6427 (98 

percent) were considered small businesses (Table 3-11). Within NAICS 211111, large firms 

compose about 2 percent of the firms, but account for 59 percent of employment and generate 

about 80 percent of estimated receipts listed under the NAICS. Within NAICS 211112, there 

are 139 firms, of which 95 (71 percent) were considered small businesses (Table 3-12). As 

shown in this table, large firms compose 29 percent of the firms, but account for 78 percent of 

employment and generate about 95 percent of estimated receipts. 

Enterprises within NAICS 211111 generated $194 billion in total receipts in 2007. 

Enterprises within NAICS 211112 generated nearly $40 billion in total receipts in 2007. 

Including those enterprises without net income, NAICS 211 averaged an after-tax profit margin 

of 8.5% in 2008 (Table 3-13). 

Table 3-11. Key Statistics for Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 

211111): 2007 

NAICS NAICS Description 

SBA Size 

Standard 

 Small 

Firms Large Firms Total Firms 

Number of Firms by Firm Size 

 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 500 6,329 95 6,424 

Total Employment by Firm Size 

 55,622 77,664 133,286 

Estimated Receipts by Firm Size ($1000) 

 44,965,936 149,141,316 194,107,252 

Note: *The counts of small and large firms in NAICS 486210 is based upon firms with less than $7.5 million in 

receipts, rather than the $7 million required by the SBA Size Standard. We used this value because U.S. Census 

reports firm counts for firms with receipts less than $7.5 million. **Employment and receipts could not be split 

between small and large businesses because of non-disclosure requirements faced by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, 

and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Size for the United States, All Industries: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/>
3-16 

Table 3-12. Key Statistics for Crude Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112): 2007 

 NAICS Description 

SBA Size 

Standard 

 Small 

Firms Large Firms Total Firms 

Number of Firms by Firm Size 

 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 500 98 41 139 

 

Total Employment by Firm Size 

 1,875 6,648 8,523 

 

Estimated Receipts by Firm Size ($1000) 

 2,164,328 37,813,413 39,977,741 

Note: *The counts of small and large firms in NAICS 486210 is based upon firms with less than $7.5 million in 

receipts, rather than the $7 million required by the SBA Size Standard. We used this value because U.S. Census 

reports firm counts for firms with receipts less than $7.5 million. **Employment and receipts could not be split 

between small and large businesses because of non-disclosure requirements faced by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, 

and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Receipt Size for the United States, All Industries: 2007.” 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/>

Table 3-13. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 211 

Number of enterprisesa 19,441 

Total receipts (103) $193,230,241 

Net sales(103

) $166,989,539 

Profit margin before tax 12.9% 

Profit margin after tax 8.5% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2004-

2007.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 

3.3 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas 

3.3.1 Overview 

Pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 48621) is an industry group within the 

transportation and warehousing sector (NAICS 48-49), but more specifically in the pipeline 
3-17 

transportation subsector (486). It includes the transmission of natural gas as well as the 

distribution of the gas through a local network to participating businesses. 

From 2002 to 2007, natural gas transportation revenues fell by 10% to just under $21 

billion ($2007) (Table 3-15). At the same time, payroll decreased by 18%, while the number of 

paid employees decreased by nearly 32%. The number of establishments decreased by 13% from 

1,701 establishments in 2002 to 1,479 in 2007. 

3.3.2 Goods and Services Used 

The BEA reports pipeline transportation of natural gas only for total pipeline 

transportation (3-digit NAICS 486). In addition to pipeline transportation of natural gas (NAICS 

4862), this industry includes pipeline transportation of crude oil (NAICS 4861) and other 

pipeline transportation (NAICS 4869). However, the BEA data are likely representative of the 

affected sector since pipeline transportation of natural gas accounts for 68% of NAICS 486 

establishments and 72% of revenues (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). 

Table 3-14. Key Statistics: Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas (NAICS 48621) ($2007) 

Year 2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 22,964 20,797 

Payroll ($106) 2,438 2,064 

Employees 32,542 24,683 

Establishments 1,701 1,479 

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: EC0748I1: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Preliminary Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002 and 

2007.” http://factfinder.census.gov (January 27, 2010). 

In Table 3-15, we use the latest detailed benchmark input-output data report by the BEA 

(2002) to identify the goods and services used by pipeline transportation (NAICS 486). As 

shown, labor, refineries, and maintenance requirements represent significant share of the cost 

associated with pipeline transportation. Power and equipment requirements potentially associated 

with reciprocating internal combustion engines (electric power generation and commercial and 

industrial machinery and equipment repair and maintenance) represent less than 2% of the value 

of services. 
3-18 

Figure 3-5. Distribution of Establishments within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 2008). 

Figure 3-6. Distribution of Revenue within Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Summary Statistics for the United States: 2002” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 2008). 

68%

21%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4862 Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural 

Gas

4869 Other Pipeline 

Transportation

4861 Pipeline 

Transportation of Crude Oil

72%

16% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4862 Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural 

Gas

4869 Other Pipeline 

Transportation

4861 Pipeline 

Transportation of Crude Oil
3-19 

Table 3-15. Direct Requirements for Pipeline Transportation (NAICS 486): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct 

Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00100 Compensation of employees 14.78% 

324110 Petroleum refineries 13.55% 

230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 6.07% 

211000 Oil and gas extraction 4.94% 

333415 Air conditioning, refrigeration, and warm air heating equipment 

manufacturing 

4.40% 

561300 Employment services 4.26% 

5416A0 Environmental and other technical consulting services 3.04% 

541300 Architectural, engineering, and related services 3.04% 

420000 Wholesale trade 2.79% 

332310 Plate work and fabricated structural product manufacturing 2.72% 

5419A0 All other miscellaneous professional, scientific, and technical services 2.48% 

524100 Insurance carriers 2.38% 

531000 Real estate 2.33% 

52A000 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 1.76% 

V00200 Taxes on production and imports, less subsidies 1.41% 

541100 Legal services 1.19% 

221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1.13% 

a These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

According to 2007 U.S. Census data, about 86% of transportation of natural gas 

establishments were owned by corporations and about 8% were owned by individual 

proprietorships. About 6% were owned by partnerships (Figure 3-7). 

Enterprises within pipeline transportation (NAICS 486) generated $11.1 billion in total 

receipts in 2007. Including those enterprises without net income, the industry averaged an aftertax profit margin of 9.6% (Table 3-16). 

The 2007 SUSB shows that about half of all firms have fewer than 20 employees, but 

only 1% of all employees in this industry. Firms with more than 500 employees generate 89% of 

all receipts in this industry (Table 3-17). 
3-20 

Figure 3-7. Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas Industry (NAICS 48621): 2002 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of Organization for the United 

States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 2008). 

Table 3-16. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/07–6/08: NAICS 486 

Number of enterprisesa 321 

Total receipts (103) $11,062,608 

Net sales (103

) $10,210,083 

Profit margin before tax 13.2% 

Profit margin after tax 9.6% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury. 2010. “Corporation Source Book: Data Files 2004-

2007.” <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,id=167415,00.html>; (May 2, 2010). 

86%

8% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Corporations Individual Proprietorships Partnerships
3-21 

Table 3-17. Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for Pipeline Transportation of 

Natural Gas (NAICS 48621): 2007 

 

Variable All Enterprises 

<20 

Employees 

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 500+ Employees 

Firms 126 63 12 9 42 

Establishments 1.479 66 26 70 1,317 

Employment 24,683 241 382 1,479 22,581 

Receipts ($103

) $20,796,681 N/A $518,341 $1,448,020 $18,498,143 

Receipts/firm ($103) $165,053 N/A $43,195 $160,891 $440,432 

Receipts/establishment 

($103

) 

$14,061 N/A $19,936 $20,686 $14,046 

Receipts/employment 

($) 

$843 N/A $1,357 $979 $819 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, U.S. All Industries 

Tabulated by Employee Size: 2007. http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2007/usalli_r07.xls. 

3.4 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 

3.4.1 Overview 

General medical and surgical hospitals (NAICS 6221) is an industry group within the 

health care and social assistance sector (NAICS 62). It includes hospitals engaged in diagnostic 

and medical treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical) for inpatients with a broad range of 

medical conditions. They usually provide other services as well, including outpatient care, 

anatomical pathology, diagnostic X-rays, clinical laboratory work, and pharmacy services. 

From 2002 to 2007, hospital revenues grew about 21% to over $650 billion ($2007) 

(Table 3-18). At the same time, payroll rose about 15%, while the number of employees 

increased by only 6%. The number of establishments increased during this period by almost 4%, 

resulting in an increase in revenue per establishment of almost 16%. 

3.4.2 Goods and Services Used 

The BEA reports hospital expenditures only for hospitals (3-digit NAICS 622). In 

addition to general hospitals (NAICS 6221), this industry includes psychiatric and substance 

abuse hospitals (NAICS 6222) and specialty hospitals (NAICS 6223). However, these data 
3-22 

should be representative of the affected sector since in 2007, general medical and surgical 

hospitals accounted for 92% of NAICS 622 establishments and 94% of revenues. 

In Table 3-19, we use the latest detailed benchmark input-output data report by the BEA 

(2002) to identify the goods and services used by hospitals (NAICS 622). As shown, labor and 

land requirements represent a significant share of the value of hospital services. Power and 

equipment requirements potentially associated with reciprocating internal combustion engines 

(electric power generation and commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repair and 

maintenance) represent less than 2% of the value of services. 
3-23 

Table 3-18. Key Statistics: General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS 6221) 

($2007) 

 2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) 539,502 651,639 

Payroll ($106) 209,063 240,638 

Employees 4,772,422 5,042 

Establishments 5,193 5,404 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: Health Care 

and Social Assistance: Geographic Area Series: 2002 and 2007.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 22, 

2012). 

Table 3-19. Direct Requirements for Hospitals (NAICS 622): 2002 

Commodity Commodity Description 

Direct Requirements 

Coefficientsa

V00100 Compensation of employees 51.90% 

531000 Real estate 10.76% 

550000 Management of companies and enterprises 4.02% 

621B00 Medical and diagnostic labs and outpatient and other ambulatory care 

services 

2.22% 

561300 Employment services 1.90% 

325412 Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing 1.86% 

325413 In-vitro diagnostic substance manufacturing 1.66% 

524100 Insurance carriers 1.66% 

420000 Wholesale trade 1.62% 

221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1.14% 

a These values show the amount of the commodity required to produce $1.00 of the industry’s output. The values 

are expressed in percentage terms (coefficient ×100). 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts: Detailed Make Table, 

Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 5. 

3.4.3 Business Statistics 

In 2010, the United States had 5,754 hospitals (Table 3-20). As shown in Table 3-1, 

nongovernmental not-for-profit hospitals accounted for 2,904 (or 50%) of these hospitals, and 

State and local government hospitals accounted for 1,068 (or 19%) of these hospitals. 
3-24 

 General medical and surgical hospitals (NAICS 6221) generated $652 billion in total 

receipts in 2007. Including those enterprises without net income, the industry averaged an aftertax profit margin of 3.1% (Table 3-22). 

Figure 3-8. Share of Establishments by Legal Form of Organization in the General 

Medical and Surgical Hospitals Industry (NAICS 6221): 2002 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: Health Care 

and Social Assistance: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of Organization for the United States: 

2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 2008). 

Table 3-20. Data for General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS 6221): 2007 

 

Commodity Establishments 

Amount 

($106

) 

Number of 

Employees 

Employees per 

Establishment 

All firms 5,404 $651,639 5,041,848 933 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011; Statistics for U.S. Businesses (SUSB), 2007. 

79.6%

19.5%

0.7% 0.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Corporations Partnerships Individual 

Proprietorships

Other Legal Forms 

of Organization
3-25 

Table 3-21. Hospital Statistics: 2010 

Hospitals Number 

Total 5,754 

Nongovernment not-forprofit 2,904 

Investor-owned (for-profit) 1,013 

State and local government 1,068 

Federal government 213 

NA = Not available 

Source: American Hospital Association. 2011. “AHA Hospital Statistics: 2010 Edition.” Health Forum. 

Table 3-22. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/05–6/06: NAICS 622-4 

Number of enterprisesa 18,263 

Total receipts (103) $108,074,793 

Net sales(103

) $102,300,229 

Profit margin before tax 4.4% 

Profit margin after tax 3.1% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Troy, Leo. 2008. “Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios: 2009 Edition.” CCH. 

3.5 Irrigation Sets and Welding Equipment 

3.5.1 Overview 

The U.S. Economic Census classifies irrigation equipment under the farm machinery and 

equipment manufacturing industry group (NAICS 333111). This U.S. industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing agricultural and farm machinery and 

equipment and other turf and grounds care equipment, including planting, harvesting, and grassmowing equipment (except lawn and garden type). 

From 2002 to 2007, farm machinery and equipment manufacturing revenues increased 

by $8 billion from $15 billion to $23 billion (Table 3-23). At the same time, payroll increased by 

21% and the number of paid employees increased by nearly 9%. The number of establishments 

dropped by 2% from 1,214 establishments in 2002 to 1,191 in 2007. Industrial production in the 

industry has been increasing since 1997 (Figure 3-9). 
3-26 

The U.S. Economic Census classifies welding equipment under the welding and 

soldering equipment manufacturing industry group (NAICS 333992). This U.S. industry 

comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing welding and soldering equipment 

and accessories (except transformers), such as welding electrodes, welding wire, and soldering 

equipment (except handheld). 

From 2002 to 2007 welding and soldering equipment manufacturing revenue increased 

by about 53% to nearly $6 billion (Table 3-24). At the same time, payroll increased by 12% and 

the number of paid employees increased by nearly 9%. The number of establishments increased 

by 31% from 250 establishments in 2002 to 303 in 2007. 

3.5.2 Irrigation and Welding Services 

The demand for equipment is derived from the demand for the services the equipment 

provides. We describe uses and industrial consumers of this equipment. 

3.5.2.1 Irrigation 

Demand for irrigation equipment is driven by farm operation decisions, optimal 

replacement considerations, and climate and weather conditions. The National Agriculture 

Statistics Service (NASS) 2008 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA-NASS, 2010) shows 
Put page number here 

3-27 

Table 3-23. Key Enterprise Statistics by Employee Size for General Medical and Surgical Hospitals (NAICS 6221): 2007 

($2007) 

Variable 

All 

Enterprises <20 Employees 

20-99 

Employees 

100-499 

Employees 500+ Employees

Firms 3,225 170 277 1,227 1,551

Establishments 5,404 173 282 1,286 3,663Employment 5,041,848 606 18,718 294,247 4,728,277Receipts ($103) $651,639,328 346.216 1,553,004 $27,889,532 $621,850,576

Receipts/firm ($103) $202,059 2,037 5,607 $22,730 $400,935

Receipts/establishment ($103) 

$120,585 2,001 5,508 $21,687 $169,766

Receipts/employment ($) 

$129 $571 $83 $95 $132

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2010. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 

2007.” <http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb07.htm>. 
3-28 

Table 3-24. Key Statistics: Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

333111) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) $15,006 $23,009 

Payroll ($106) $2,132 $2,580 

Employees 53,817 58,838 

Establishments 1,214 1,191 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Business (SUSB), 2007. 

Figure 3-9. Industrial Production Index (NAICS 333111) 

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Index Values (Jan-97=100)

Industrial Production Index (NAICS 333111)
3-29 

Table 3-25. Key Statistics: Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

333992) ($2007) 

2002 2007 

Revenue ($106) $3,880 $5,935 

Payroll ($106) $811 $910 

Employees 16,128 17,529 

Establishments 231 303 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; using American FactFinder; “Sector 31: Manufacturing: Industry Series: Historical 

Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and 2007” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 15, 2012). 

that the top five states ranked by total acres irrigated are Nebraska, California, Texas, Arkansas, 

and Idaho. Virtually all of the irrigated areas in the U.S. are west of the Mississippi River. 

The survey reported that approximately 546,000 pumps were used on U.S. farms in 2008 

with energy expenses totaling approximately $2.7 billion. Electricity is the dominant form of 

energy expense for irrigation pumps, accounting for 59% of total energy expenses. Diesel fuel is 

second (25%), followed by natural gas (17%) and other forms of energy such as gasoline (2%). 

Per-acre operating costs for these irrigation systems vary by fuel type, and natural gas 

was the most expensive in 2008 ($93 per acre for well systems and $44 per acre for surface water 

systems) (Table 3-26). Systems using diesel fuel were operated at approximately half of these 

per-acre costs ($54 per acre for well systems and $42 per acre for surface water systems). 

Gasoline- and gasohol-powered systems offered the least expensive operating costs for well 

systems ($39 per acre) and electricity-power systems offered the least expensive operating costs 

for surface water systems ($45 per acre). As shown in Table 3-27, the number of on-farm pumps 

increased to 546,308 from 489,434 (12%) between 2003 and 2008. The use of electric- and 

diesel-powered pumps increased during this period (21% and 3%, respectively), while other fuel 

sources such as liquid petroleum (LP) gas, propane, and butane declined significantly (31%). 
3-30 

Table 3-26. Expenses per Acre by Type of Energy: 2008 

Fuel Type Irrigated by Water from Wells Irrigated by Surface Water 

Electricity $57.80 $35.07 

Natural gas $93.03 $43.85 

LP gas, propane, butane $38.72 $45.40 

Diesel fuel $54.20 $41.94 

Gasoline and gasohol $84.98 $39.24 

Total $60.90 $36.13 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. “2008 Farm and Ranch 

Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Table 20. Found on the Internet at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08_

1_20.pdf. 

Table 3-27. Number of On-Farm Pumps of Irrigation Water by Type of Energy: 2003 and 

2008 

Fuel Type 2003 2008 Percentage Change 

Electricity 312,145 377,492 21% 

Natural gas 41,768 36,176 –13% 

LP gas, propane, butane 17,786 12,203 –31% 

Diesel fuel 112,133 115,249 3% 

Gasoline and gasohol 5,602 5,188 –7% 

Total 489,434 546,308 12% 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. “2008 Farm and Ranch 

Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Table 20. Found on the Internet at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08_

1_20.pdf

Although no information is available on the use and construction of on-farm pumps specifically, 

their use is tied to the amount of agricultural land in production. USDA reports that planted acres 

of the eight major crops hit a 5-year high of 252 million acres in 2008 but will fall and level off 

to around 244 million acres over the next 2 to 4 years (USDA, 2008). 

3.5.2.2 Welding 

Welding is used in a wide variety of applications. One of the biggest manufacturers of 

welding products identifies the following key end-user segments: 

 general metal fabrication; 
3-31 

 infrastructure including oil and gas pipelines and platforms, buildings, bridges, and 

power generation; 

 transportation and defense industries (automotive, trucks, rail, ships, and aerospace); 

 equipment manufacturers in construction, farming, and mining; 

 retail resellers; and 

 rental market (Lincoln Electric Holdings, 2006). 

Lincoln Electric further describes the following key applications: power generation and process 

industries, offshore production of oil and gas, pipelines/pipemills, and heavy fabrication 

(earthmoving and construction equipment and agricultural and farm equipment. 

3.5.3 Business Statistics 

Enterprises within agriculture, construction, and mining machinery manufacturing 

(NAICS 3331) generated $88 billion of total receipts in 2007, while those in other general 

purpose machinery manufacturing (NAICS 3339) generated $85.7 billion. The average after-tax 

profit margin in these two industries was 6.9% and 4.7%, respectively (Table 3-28). 

Table 3-28. Aggregate Tax Data for Accounting Period 7/05–6/06: NAICS 3331 and 3339 

Agriculture, Construction, & Mining 

Machinery Manufacturing 

Other General Purpose Machinery 

Manufacturing 

Number of enterprisesa 3,064 6,231 

Total receipts (103) $88,255,496 $85,653,046 

 

Profit margin before tax 9.1% 6.1% 

Profit Margin after tax 6.9% 4.7% 

a Includes corporations with and without net income. 

Source: Troy, Leo. 2008. “Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios: 2009 Edition.” CCH. 

As noted earlier, welding equipment is used in heavy fabrication such as earthmoving and 

construction equipment. We focus on the size distribution for a representative sector in this 

section (NAICS 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction); other subsections in Section 3 

cover other sectors that potentially use equipment powered by diesel engines (e.g., power 

generation and offshore gas distribution). As shown in Table 3-29, SUSB data suggest that more 

than 80% of firms are below the Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size 
3-32 

standard for this industry. However, it is not clear what fraction of these firms use stationary 

diesel engines. 
3-33 

Table 3-29. Key Enterprise Statistics by Receipt Size for Heavy Construction: 2007a

Variable All Enterprises 

<20 

Employees 

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 500+ 

Firms 49,228 40,654 6,793 1,422 359

Establishments 51,421 40,670 6,947 1,847 1,987Employment 1,016,407 183,487 273,867 238,342 320,711Receipts ($103) $263,941,774 $46,766,241 $68,078,765 $69,190,739 $79,906,029

Receipts/firm ($103) $5,362 $1,150 $10,022 $48,657 $222,579

Receipts/establishment ($103) 

$5,133 $1,150 $9,800 $37,461 $40,214

Receipts/employment ($) 

$260 $255 $249 $290 $249

a 2007 SUSB. The most comparable 2007 NAICS code for this industry is 237. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2007. 

http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2007/usalli_r07.xls. 
4-1 

SECTION 4

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, COSTS, AND EMISSION IMPACTS 

4.1 Background 

This section of the RIA includes a discussion of the regulatory alternatives considered for 

the proposed reconsidered rule, the costs associated with these regulatory alternatives, and the 

impacts on affected emissions (both HAP and non-HAP). All impacts presented are for the year 

of full implementation, 2013. Costs in the chapter are in 2008$. Costs in 2010$ shown in other 

parts of the RIA are escalated values of these 2008$. Although the estimates presented are 

annualized, they should be understood as a “snapshot” in analyzing costs. 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments, the EPA received several 

petitions for reconsideration, legal challenges, and other communications raising issues of 

practical implementability, and certain factual information that had not been brought to the 

EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The EPA has considered this information and believes 

that amendments to the rule to address certain of these issues are appropriate. Therefore, the 

EPA is proposing amendments to NESHAP for stationary RICE signed in March 2010 for CI 

engines and August 2010 for SI engines under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This proposal 

was developed to address certain issues that have been raised by different stakeholders through 

lawsuits, several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments and other 

communications. The proposed amendments include alternative testing options for certain large 

spark ignition (generally natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark ignition stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines in sparsely populated areas, and alternative and less burdensome 

monitoring and compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The EPA is also 

proposing to include a limited temporary allowance for existing stationary emergency area 

source engines to be used for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response as part of the 

pre-existing allowance for such engines to be used for non-emergency use for 50 hours annually. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing, in both the NESHAP and in the new source performance 

standards for stationary internal combustion engines to increase the hours that stationary 

emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The proposed amendments 

also correct minor mistakes in the pre-existing regulations. 

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 
4-2 

subject to federal standards, is justified. Therefore, EPA is issuing this rulemaking that 

reconsiders the 2010 final rule requiring emissions reductions from existing stationary diesel 

engines. The full preamble for the final CI RICE NESHAP and the rule itself can be reviewed at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/fr03mr10.pdf. 

4.2 Summary of the Proposed Reconsideration Rule 

4.2.1 Proposed Amendment - Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

4.2.1.1 Background 

 This action proposes to amend provisions in the RICE NESHAP that currently allow 

owners and operators to operate stationary emergency engines for up to 15 hours per year as part 

of a demand response program if the RTO or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator have determined there are emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical 

blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, 

or unacceptable voltage level. The final rule did not allow emergency engines to be used for 

purposes of peak shaving or other non-emergency purposes as part of a financial arrangement. 

These provisions were included in the RICE NESHAP when requirements for existing stationary 

CI engines were finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648). Following the completion of that 

portion of the rule, the EPA received three main petitions for reconsideration. One petition was 

from CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and Innoventive Power, LLC. 

(EnerNOC et al.)(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0404). Another petition was received from the 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE DNREC) (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708-0400). The third petition was from the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association (NRECA) (OAR-2008-0708-0580). In addition to these main petitions the EPA 

received a substantial number of letters from others in the electric generation industry. 

 The petition from EnerNOC, et al., asked that EPA increase the period of time permitted 

for emergency demand response operation in the rule to 60 hours per year, or the minimum 

number of hours required by the emergency demand response program. By contrast, the DE 

DNREC petition asked EPA to reconsider the emergency demand response provision because of 

the adverse effects that it believes would result from increased emissions from these engines. 

The petition from NRECA requested that the EPA eliminate the restriction on the use of 
4-3 

stationary emergency engines for demand response purposes. The EPA granted the petitions 

from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and NRECA, and issued a notice on December 7, 2010 (75 

FR 75937), requesting comments on whether to amend the 15 hours per year limitation on the 

operation of stationary emergency RICE participating in emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 comments from a number of different entities including 

various state agencies, utilities, electric cooperatives and industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per year is not sufficient to meet current emergency demand 

response requirements for participation. For example, several emergency demand response 

programs have ISO tariff requirements greater than 15 hours per year, including the Electric 

Reliability Council of Texas emergency demand response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the Pennsylvania Jersey Maryland (“PJM”) Interconnection, 

known as the Emergency Load Response Program, which has a tariff requirement of 60 hours 

per year; and the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”), which forecasts that backup resources would be 

expected for 55 hours over a 12-month period. Tariff requirements are developed to specify the 

mandatory time load resources (engines) must be willing and able to operate if the units are 

enrolled in the program. Conversely, some commenters urged the EPA to allow stationary 

emergency engines to only operate during true emergencies or when voltage or frequency varies 

beyond specified parameters. 

 Based on the EPA’s review of the petitions and comments that the EPA has received, the 

EPA has found it appropriate to propose to amend the current rule to increase the allowance for 

stationary emergency engine participation in emergency demand response programs to up to 100 

hours per year, which would be included as part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 hours for 

owners of emergency engines to test and maintain their emergency engines. The EPA believes 

that the emergency demand response programs that exist across the country are important 

programs that protect the reliability and stability of the national electric service grid. Allowing 

stationary emergency engines to operate as part of emergency demand response programs can 

help prevent grid failure or blackouts, by allowing these engines to be used in circumstances of 

grid instability prior to the occurrence of blackouts. Preventing stationary emergency engines 

from being able to qualify and participate in emergency demand response programs without 

having to apply aftertreatment could force owners and operators to leave their engines out of 

these programs, which will impair the ability of ISOs and RTOs to use these relatively small, 

quick-starting and reliable sources of energy to protect the reliability of their systems. The EPA 

does not wish to potentially jeopardize electrical reliability or create a disincentive for stationary 

emergency engines to participate in these programs. The circumstances during which the EPA 
4-4 

would allow stationary emergency engines to operate for emergency demand response purposes 

include periods during which the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard 

EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during periods where there is a deviation of 

voltage or frequency of 5 percent or more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA 

Level 2 alerts there is insufficient energy supply and a true potential for electrical blackouts. 

System operators must call on all available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts in order to 

stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation is a good indicator of severe 

instability on the system. Consistent normal voltage provided by the utility is often called power 

quality and is an important factor in local electric system reliability. Reliability of the system 

requires electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The American National 

Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 defines the maximum allowable voltage sag at below 5 

percent. On the local distribution level local voltage levels are therefore important and a 5 

percent or more change in the normal voltage or frequency is substantial and an indication that 

additional resources are needed to ensure local distribution system reliability. This situation 

would be indicative of severe instability on the system. 

Emergency demand response programs rely on agreements under which owners of engine 

agree to make their engines available to be called upon for a specific number of hours per year, 

as required by the relevant ISO or RTO tariff, under specified circumstances considered to 

indicate emergencies. In order to be enrolled in an emergency demand response program, 

participants must qualify their engines and must be able to use their emergency engines for the 

number of hours the program requires. Engines are not generally called upon for the maximum 

hours required by the tariffs. However, even though the engine may not be called at all or may 

run for fewer hours than the program requires it to be available in a particular year, the engine 

must still be available for those theoretical number of hours in order to join the program. 

Demand response contracts require more hours than the 15 hours per year that is currently in the 

regulations, and the commenters state that the 15 hours per year is not a sufficient amount of 

time to ensure the reliability of the program; some programs require up to 60 hours per year, as 

discussed earlier. For these reasons, the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow additional hours 

for emergency demand response operation in order for such programs to be accessible to 

stationary emergency engines. Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule to 

increase the limitation on emergency demand response operation to 100 hours per year for 

stationary emergency engines. It is expected that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines that seek to qualify their units as demand resources would with the proposed increase to 
4-5 

100 hours per year be able to meet the operational and qualification requirements of the different 

ISOs and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency engines that participate in demand response programs 

may not be called upon at all, but must nonetheless be available to operate for the required 

amount stipulated by the specific program. The purpose of the limited allowance for demand 

response is to respond to emergencies, and the EPA is persuaded by the information that has 

been submitted that 15 hours per year is an insufficient amount of time to allow for emergency 

demand response needs, given past experience. The EPA believes 100 hours per year is 

sufficient to cover any potential demand response operation as well as the required maintenance 

and testing that is also included within the 100 hours of operation. 

The EPA has previously determined that stationary emergency engines typically operate 

well below 50 hours per year and more commonly about 1 to 2 hours per month. A survey 

conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CA ARB) indicated the average yearly 

operation for emergency diesel engines was 31 hours over a period of 3 years. The majority of 

those hours were for the purpose of maintenance and testing; less than 5 hours was for 

interruptible service contracts, and the remaining amount for emergency/standby operation 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011). Data from demand response programs in ISO-NE and PJM 

territories show that backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours during the summers 

of 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

However, again, emergency units must be available to operate more than that in most 

cases to qualify for demand response programs. For instance, PJM requires a minimum ISO tariff 

of 60 hours per year of engine availability for program participation. Consequently, in order to 

ensure that a sufficient amount of operating time is available for maintenance and readiness 

testing, and for demand response operation, the EPA is proposing 100 hours of operation. A 

number of commenters requested that an allowance of 100 hours per year be allowed in order to 

provide adequate hours consistent with minimum required hours that customers must be 

available to operate and to address local distribution system emergencies. For instance, in 

Hawaii, the emergency demand response program operated by the Hawaiian Electric Company 

requires that emergency engines be able to operate for 100 hours per year in the event of an 

emergency in order to participate in the program. In order to provide a sufficient amount of time 

to cover annual maintenance and testing, which is typically more than 20 hours per year 

according to the survey conducted by CA ARB (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011), plus to 

cover hours necessary for qualifying for emergency demand response programs or local 

distribution system emergencies, EPA believes an allowance of 100 hours per year would be 
4-6 

appropriate for these activities. Taking into account that there may be situations where annual 

maintenance and testing could exceed the typical 1 to 2 hours per month and accounting for other 

emergency demand response programs that require more than 60 hours per year for program 

participation (e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), the EPA believes that 100 hours per year is 

appropriate for emergency demand response plus maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule would mean that stationary emergency engines 

could operate for a total of 100 hours per year for emergency demand response operation as part 

of the 100 hours already permitted for maintenance and readiness testing while maintaining their 

status as emergency units, rather than non-emergency units, and continue to meet the 

requirements that apply to emergency engines. 

 On the issue of peak shaving and non-emergency demand response, the EPA is proposing 

to include a temporary limited allowance for peak shaving and other types of non-emergency use 

as part of a financial arrangement for existing stationary emergency engines at area sources of 

HAP, if the peak shaving is done as part of a peak shaving (or load management) program with 

the local distribution system operator. The power generated under this allowance can only be 

used at the facility or towards the local system. 

 The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to include the option for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources to operate for a small number (50) of hours per year for any 

non-emergency reason to generate income locally and not be penalized or considered a nonemergency engine and subsequently required to install aftertreatment that could be prohibitively 

costly for these sources in the near term. The EPA is proposing that the 50-hour allowance for 

peak shaving for emergency engines at area sources be allowed for a limited period of time, but 

then removed after April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would also be limited to operation as part 

of a peak shaving (load management program) with the local distribution system operator. 

Owners would still have the pre-existing 50 hours per year allowance for non-emergency 

operation after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours could no longer be used for peak shaving. The 

temporary allowance for peak shaving would give sources time to address reliability issues and 

develop solutions to reliability issues while facilities are coming into compliance with the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units, which were promulgated on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). ). 

This limited allowance would allow the owners and operators of these engines more flexibility to 

run reliability critical units in order to minimize potential grid-related interruptions as coal- and 

oil-fired baseload power plants may be temporarily shut down to install emission controls to 

comply with the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 
4-7 

 Including this allowance is important for small electric cooperatives and other entities 

located at area sources that use these engines to maintain voltage and electric reliability. Many 

rural electric cooperatives enter agreements with owners of small emergency engines and rely on 

the engines to reduce demand on the central power supply during periods of high , which 

reduces the cost of power during periods of high demand for the members of the cooperative. 

Commenters promoting the continued use of peak shaving programs said that maintaining the 

cost of power as low as possible is important across the country, but is particularly of significant 

importance to rural electric cooperatives that, according to the commenter, service customers in 

the most economically depressed areas of the country, where options are the most limited. The 

commenters argued that if small emergency engines would no longer be permitted to operate for 

peak shaving purposes without having to be reclassified as non-emergency engines and 

subsequently subject to costly emissions controls, owners could no longer afford to participate in 

such programs. Cooperatives argued that this would lead to increased costs that would ultimately 

be passed along to the customers. Commenters also maintained that keeping peak shaving 

programs would not lead to additional public health risks or emissions because the operation for 

peak shaving is minimal. If peak shaving is not allowed under the rule, commenters said that this 

would lead to an increase in central power station capacity and possibly more transmission and 

distribution line capacity to accommodate the increase in demand resulting from eliminating 

small emergency engines from being used. This could lead to a larger impact on the environment 

and public health than allowing a small number of hours for peak shaving purposes. Certain 

small and remote facilities also rely on financial programs to generate additional income in order 

to maintain their engines and stay in operation. The additional funds can be essential for many 

smaller facilities and operations. Providing a limited allowance for peak shaving and nonemergency demand response could generate sufficient income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where these engines are in service. In order to further limit the 

operation of these engines to small, remote facilities, the EPA is proposing that the power 

generated under this allowance can only be used at the facility or towards the local system. In 

addition, while the EPA is proposing this allowance until the end of April 16, 2017, the EPA 

does not believe it is appropriate to continue the program beyond that time. Generators receive 

considerable compensation for their availability in peak shaving programs and the EPA believes 

that it is not appropriate to allow these engines to continue receiving compensation for this nonemergency use beyond 2017 without having to reduce their emissions. The generators must by 

that time decide whether to restrict their use to emergency or limited non-compensated nonemergency use or to reduce the emissions from their engines. The EPA also encourages engine 
4-8 

owners and operators, as well as larger system planners, to consider the use of alternative peak 

shaving options, such as load curtailments, lower emitting distributed generation, combined heat 

and power, and reduced line losses on the electricity grid. 

The previous estimate of emissions from stationary emergency engines is not expected to 

change due to this proposed limited allowance. To estimate emissions from stationary emergency 

engines, the EPA has previously estimated that emergency engines would on average operate for 

50 hours per year. There is a wide range in how much these engines operate (some well below 50 

hours per year), but on average and to be conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is 

still representative and consequently the environmental impact the EPA has calculated 

previously remains appropriate.In consideration of all these issues, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to the rule to provide a limited allowance for peak shaving for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources of HAP. The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are 

discussed below. 

4.2.1.2. What are the Proposed Amendments? 

4.2.1.2.1 Emergency Demand Response. 

The EPA is proposing to revise the current provisions for stationary engines used for 

emergency demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing to amend are in 

§§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) 

allows a maximum of 15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation under 

certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) currently includes an allowance of 100 

hours per year for purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is proposing 

that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE be permitted to operate their engines as 

part of an emergency demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is permitted 

for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). Owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines can operate for emergency demand response during periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has declared 

an EEA Level 2 as defined in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability 

Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency and during periods where there is a 

deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

The hours spent for emergency demand response operation are added to the hours spent for 

maintenance and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. If the total time 

spent for demand response operation and maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the 

engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart and will need to meet all 
4-9 

requirements for non-emergency engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be 

called to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or equivalent to maintain the 

reliability of the bulk power system, but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were installed prior to June 12, 

2006, there is currently no emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit on 

the use of emergency engines for routine testing and maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those 

engines were not the focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did not 

make any changes to the requirements for those engines as part of the 2010 amendments. For 

consistency, the EPA is now also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to operate their engines as part of a demand 

response program as well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for maintenance 

and testing. 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines in 40 

CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for engines subject to the RICE 

NESHAP. The NSPS regulations currently do not include such an allowance for emergency 

demand response operation. For the reasons discussed as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to 

allow stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand response programs and 

remain being considered emergency units, and for consistency across engine regulations, the 

EPA is proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under the NSPS regulations. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing to revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, 

to specify that emergency engines may participate in demand response programs for up to 100 

hours per year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of the emergency engines. 

4.2.1.3 Peak Shaving and other Non-emergency Use as Part of a Financial Arrangement. 

In addition to the changes the EPA is proposing related to emergency demand response 

operation, the EPA is also including a further provision for owners and operators of existing 

stationary emergency RICE located at area sources. Paragraph §63.6640(f) currently allows 

owners and operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate their engine for 50 hours per year 

in non-emergency situations. As currently written, the 50 hours per year for 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; 
4-10 

except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines may operate the engine for a 

maximum of 15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand response program. As discussed, 

the 15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to participate in emergency demand 

response programs is being increased to 100 hours per year, but will also include hours spent 

towards maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the emergency engines. However, 

additionally, the EPA is also proposing that stationary emergency engines located at area sources 

be permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently allowed under §63.6640(f) for nonemergency operation towards any non-emergency operation, including operation as part of a 

financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving allowance would expire in 2017. The 

EPA is specifying that the power can only be used at the facility or towards the local system, and 

the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as part of a program with the local distribution 

system operator. The EPA is also clarifying that an engine that exceeds the calendar year 

limitations on non-emergency operation, including emergency demand response or peak shaving, 

will be considered a non-emergency engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency 

engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

4.2.1.4. Proposed Amendment - Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP, the EPA required existing nonemergency CI engines above 300 HP to meet a standard of either 70 percent reduction of CO 

emissions or 49 ppmvd CO, for engines between 300 and 500 HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for engines 

above 500 HP. The requirements also included testing and monitoring provisions. As with all 

requirements for existing engines in that rule, owners and operators were required to meet the 

requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the regulations (May 3, 2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for existing stationary CI engines, stakeholders from the 

agricultural industry in the San Joaquin Valley area of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these requirements on engines in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in San Joaquin Valley certified to the Tier 3 standards in 40 

CFR part 89 that were installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, 

stationary CI engines at area sources are existing if construction of the engine commenced prior 

to June 12, 2006. These 17 Tier 3 engines in the San Joaquin Valley, which were built to meet 

stringent emission standards, would not be able to comply with the applicable RICE NESHAP 

emission standards for existing engines without further testing and monitoring, and possible 

retrofit with further controls, due to differences in the emission standards and testing protocols in 

the RICE NESHAP versus the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. However, an identical engine 
4-11 

certified to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 standards for engines above 560 kilowatts (kW)) in 40 

CFR part 89 that was installed after June 12, 2006, would not have to be retrofit in order to 

comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI engines installed after June 12, 2006, at area sources of 

HAP are required to comply with the NSPS for stationary CI engines, which requires engines to 

be certified to the standards in 40 CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as applicable. Thus, a 2006 

model year stationary CI engine installed after June 12, 2006, that is certified to the applicable 

standards would meet the requirements of the NESHAP without further controls or testing. 

While the EPA does not know if other certified Tier 3 engines besides these 17 engines in the 

San Joaquin Valley were installed prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the same rationale 

should apply to any such engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 standards (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) are 

technologically stringent regulations and believes it is unnecessary to require further regulation 

of engines meeting these standards. In order to address this concern, the EPA is proposing 

changes to amend the requirements for any certified Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) 

stationary CI engine located at an area source and installed before June 12, 2006. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to specify that any existing certified Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 

kW) CI engine that was installed before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This 

amendment would include any existing stationary Tier 3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) 

certified CI engine located at an area source of HAP emissions. 

 Another concern brought to the EPA’s attention by the San Joaquin Valley agricultural 

industry is that due to state and local requirements in the San Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are regulated as existing sources under the NESHAP must 

be replaced in the next few years, only a short time after the emission standards for existing 

engines must be met. Specifically, the San Joaquin Valley APCD rule for internal combustion 

engines (Rule 4702) requires Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified engines to meet Tier 4 standards by 

January 1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date, but no later than June 1, 2018. The 

concern is that owners and operators of these engines would have to install aftertreatment by 

2013 to meet the emission standards of the RICE NESHAP and then only a few years later be 

required to replace their engines per San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. The San Joaquin 

Valley APCD has identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are scheduled to be 

replaced under the local rule. The EPA has not identified any engines outside the San Joaquin 

Valley APCD area that are in the same or similar situation (i.e., required to be replaced shortly 

after the compliance date for existing engines), but the EPA does not preclude the possibility that 
4-12 

there are such engines in other areas, and requests comment and information on other areas that 

may have similar concerns. 

 The EPA does not think it is appropriate to require emission controls on a stationary CI 

engine that is going to be retired only a short time after the rule goes into effect. Stationary CI 

engines would have to comply with this rule by May 3, 2013, and owners of engines above 300 

HP are expected to have to install aftertreatment on their engines in order to meet the emission 

standards. The EPA estimates that the one-time cost to equip a 500 HP stationary CI engine with 

the controls necessary to meet the emission standards under this rule is close to $14,000 and 

more than $3,000 on a yearly basis, not accounting for additional costs associated with 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting. These engines (equipped with aftertreatment) 

could end up being in operation for less than 2 years or at most only 5 years before having to be 

replaced with a certified Tier 4 engine, as required by San Joaquin Valley District Rule 4702. It 

would not be reasonable to require the engine owner to invest in costly controls and monitoring 

equipment for an engine that will be replaced shortly after the installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to existing stationary CI engines 

located at area sources of HAP emissions to address this concern. The EPA is proposing to 

amend the requirements for existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines located at 

area sources that are greater than 300 HP that are subject to a state or local rule that requires the 

engine to be replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow these engines to meet management 

practices for a period of 2 years starting with the applicable May 3, 2013, compliance date. The 

EPA believes a period of 2 years is appropriate and provides owners enough time to replace their 

engines without mandating a possibly cost prohibitive requirement to change all of the engines in 

a short amount of time, while still requiring that replacement of the engine or a retrofit of the 

engine occur relatively quickly after the owner would have to comply with the NESHAP. The 

EPA is proposing that these engines be subject to management practices until May 3, 2015, after 

which time the CO emission standards discussed above (and that are in Table 2d of the rule) 

apply. The management practices include requirements for when to inspect and replace the 

engine oil and filter, air cleaner, hoses and belts. The complete details of which management 

practices are required are shown in Table 2d of the rule. Owners and operators of these existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions that intend to meet management 

practices rather than the emission limits prior to May 3, 2015, must submit a notification by 

March 3, 2013, stating that they intend to use this provision and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

4.2.1.5 Proposed Amendments – for Remote Areas of Alaska
4-13 

4.2.1.5.1 Background for Proposed Amendments

 The RICE NESHAP currently specifies less stringent requirements for existing nonemergency CI engines at area sources located in remote areas of Alaska. Remote areas are 

defined as those not accessible by the FAHS. The FAHS includes areas with year-round ferry 

service that are not on the contiguous road system. Under the current regulation, stationary nonemergency CI engines at area sources in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS are 

subject to management practices as opposed to numerical emission standards. 

Following the publication of the final rule in 2010, the EPA received requests to expand 

the definition of remote areas of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that facilities in areas that are 

accessible by the FAHS but are not connected to the Alaska Railbelt grid face the same 

challenges as those in areas not accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska Railbelt Grid refers to the 

service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the 

Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are the Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric 

Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal 

Light & Power, and the City of Seward Electric System. According to the stakeholders, one 

reason for broadening the definition of remote areas in Alaska is high energy costs, which 

provide a natural incentive to run CI engines as little as possible. The cost of energy is utilities’ 

greatest concern in Alaska. Also, the stakeholders indicated that extreme weather conditions in 

certain areas of Alaska is another reason for including additional areas in the definition of remote 

areas of Alaska. The climate issue is unique to remote areas of Alaska that experience some of 

the most extreme temperatures in the country. Heavy snowfall and high winds are not 

uncommon in several areas that are accessible by the FAHS. For instance, Copper Valley 

Electric Association (CVEA) is a utility accessible by the FAHS, but it includes areas that face 

the same challenges as other communities not accessible by the FAHS. The utility operates on an 

isolated grid and relies on diesel power generation. In one of CVEA’s territories, Valdez, Alaska, 

CVEA indicated that this area experiences brutal conditions and stated that Valdez is considered 

to have the greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) in any city of the United States. Also, winds 

at more than 100 miles per hour are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, according to CVEA. 

Temperatures between 40 and 50 below zero are also not abnormal, which emphasizes the 

extreme reliance on power, CVEA asserted. Travel times and accessibility are issues on a regular 

basis, but can be additionally exacerbated due to severe weather, which in some cases may lead 

to avalanches and road closings. In particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, in the event of poor 

weather conditions and road closings, there are in many cases no alternate roads to travel on. 

Further, access to specific isolated sites can also be problematic in particular remote areas of 
4-14 

Alaska and the problems are unique to Alaska because of the infrastructure and environment. For 

example, communities made the case that sources along the AMHS that are only accessible by 

the AMHS should be treated the same way as communities not accessible by the FAHS. The 

AMHS primarily serves passengers and vehicles, and is not intended for transporting goods. 

Therefore, the same methods used to bring in goods to communities not on the FAHS are the 

same as those Alaskan villages served only by the AMHS. Goods are typically brought in to 

remote communities by barge and this is another example of a scenario that is unique to Alaska. 

Other arguments for expanding the definition of remote areas of Alaska beyond those not 

accessible by the FAHS include very low population density in many other remote areas 

although accessible by the FAHS, and the fact that many of these areas are not connected to the 

electric grid and rely on back up diesel generation to support fluctuating renewable energy 

systems. The energy supply system is another area that is particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country whose majority of customers are connected to the grid. 

Lastly, if sources were to comply with requirements under the RICE NESHAP necessitating addon controls and associated monitoring, testing, and administrative requirements, compliance 

costs would be high and funds needed for sustainable renewable energy goals would be diverted. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the EPA is proposing expansion of the remote area source 

category. This proposal is supported by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

and communities with whom the EPA has discussed this issue. 

4.2.1.5.2 What are the Proposed Amendments? 

 The EPA is proposing to expand the current definition of remote areas of Alaska to 

extend beyond areas that are not accessible by the FAHS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the FAHS and that meet all of the following criteria are 

also considered remote and subject to management practices under the rule: 

•The stationary CI engine is located in an area not connected to the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

•At least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine per year is used for residential 

purposes, and 

•The system capacity is less than 12 megawatts, or the engine is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 hours per year on a 10-year 

rolling average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the remote classification to engines that are used at least partially 

for residential purposes, where the impact of higher energy costs is of greatest concern. The 
4-15 

classification is further limited to sources that are used infrequently as backup for renewable 

power, or that are at smaller capacity facilities, which are generally in more sparsely populated 

areas. 

 4.2.1.6 Compliance Date 

 The EPA has received some questions regarding whether the compliance dates for 

engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and this proposed reconsideration will be extended. 

Affected sources that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about having 

sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance date, which is May 3, 2013, for 

existing stationary CI RICE and October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with compliance in the event that the 

EPA does not finalize changes that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in this 

action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, and October 19, 2013, compliance 

dates, because there are many engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, we note that sources that are affected by the 

reconsideration and that may need additional time to install controls to comply with the 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to install controls, as specified in 40 

CFR 63.6(i). 

4.2.2 What Are the Pollutants Regulated by this Proposed Reconsideration Rule? 

The proposed reconsideration rule regulates emissions of HAP. Available emissions data 

show that several HAP, which are formed during the combustion process or which are contained 

within the fuel burned, are emitted from stationary engines. The HAP which have been measured 

in emission tests conducted on diesel fired RICE include: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, 

benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

polycyclic organic matter, styrene, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP from diesel fired 

stationary RICE that have been measured are: cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, 

nickel, and selenium. 

EPA described the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted from the operation 

of stationary RICE in the preamble to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, published on June 15, 

2004 (69 FR 33474). These HAP emissions are known to cause, or contribute significantly to air 

pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. More 
4-16 

details on the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted from operation of stationary 

RICE can be found in Section 7 of this RIA. 

The proposed amendments will continue to limit emissions of HAP through emissions 

standards for CO for existing stationary CI RICE in similar quantities as estimated for the 2010 

final rule. Carbon monoxide has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions 

from CI engines. For the NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA found that there is a relationship 

between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions from CI stationary engines. 

Therefore, because testing for CO emissions has many advantages over testing for HAP 

emissions, CO emissions were chosen as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for CI 

stationary engines. 

For the standards included in this action, EPA believes that previous decisions regarding 

the appropriateness of using CO in concentration (ppm) levels as has been done for stationary 

sources before as surrogates for HAP are still valid.1

 Therefore, the EPA is retaining the emission 

standards for CO for CI engines in order to regulate HAP emissions. 

In addition to reducing HAP and CO, the proposed amendments will 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. Also, the proposed rule requires the use of ULSD for diesel-fueled stationary nonemergency 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. 

4.3 Cost Impacts 

4.3.1 Introduction 

The cost impacts associated with this rule consist of different types of costs, which 

include the annual and capital costs of controls, costs associated with keeping records of 

information necessary to demonstrate compliance, costs associated with reporting requirements 

under the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, costs of purchasing and operating 

equipment associated with continuous parametric monitoring, and the cost of conducting 

performance testing to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards. The capital and 

 

1

In contrast, mobile source emission standards for diesel engines (both nonroad and on-highway) are promulgated 

on a mass basis rather than concentration. 
4-17 

annual costs presented in this section are calculated based on the control cost methodology 

presented in the EPA (2002) Air Pollution Control Cost Manual prepared by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.2

 This methodology sets out a procedure by which capital and 

annualized costs are defined and estimated, and this procedure is often used to estimate the costs 

of rulemakings such as this one. The capital costs presented in this section are annualized using a 

7% interest rate, a rate that is consistent with the guidance provided in the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB’s) (2003) Circular A-4.3

 The following sections describe how the various 

cost elements were estimated. Note that the methodologies and procedures presented in the 

following sections are the same as those used for the 2010 final rule. 

4.3.1.1 Control Costs 

For engines that will need to add control technology to meet the emission standards, the 

following equations were used to estimate capital and annual control costs as shown in Table 4-

3: 

Table 4-1: CI RICE Control Technologies and Costs 

Technology Capital Cost ($2008) Annual Cost ($2008) 

Diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) $27.4 x hp − $939 $4.99 x hp + $480 

Open crankcase ventilation (OCV) $0.26 x hp + $997 $0.065 x hp + $254 

The control costs for DOC were calculated using cost data obtained from a California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) study.4

 The study provided cost ranges for diesel engines ranging from 

40 hp to 1400 hp. The average cost from the range was selected and was adjusted to 2008 

dollars. The capital and annual cost were calculated using maintenance data from the CARB 

study and cost assumptions from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The control costs 

for the OCV system were calculated using 2008 cost data obtained from a diesel engine 

equipment vendor. An equipment life of 10 years was used to calculate the capital recovery 

factor (CRF) for developing the annual cost for each of the control devices. A linear regression 

equation was developed for the capital cost of the DOC and OCV using the capital cost data and 

the engine size in hp. This approach was used to develop a linear regression equation for annual 

cost. 

 

2

 Available on the Internet at http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo. 3

 Available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf. 4

Diesel PM Control Technologies, Appendix IX, California Air Resource Board, October 2000. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp9.pdf 
4-18 

4.3.1.2 Recordkeeping 

Minimal recordkeeping costs were attributed to the requirement of following the 

manufacturer’s emission-related operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements or the owner 

or operator’s own maintenance plan. It is expected that the majority of owners and operators are 

already following some type of O&M requirements and a small additional burden is expected. 

The EPA expects that at most 1 hour will be necessary per year in order to keep track of 

maintenance. Owners and operator of stationary emergency engines are required to keep track of 

the hours of operation and 1 hour per year was estimated to cover that recordkeeping activity. 

For emergency engines 1 hour is expected to cover tracking hours of operation plus recording 

maintenance activities. No cost is attributed to purchasing and installing an hour-meter since the 

majority of stationary engines already come equipped with such equipment. Labor costs 

associated with recording the hours of operation of emergency engines are based on a technical 

labor rate of $68 per hour which was obtained from the Department of Labor Statistics web site.5

The final total wage rate was based on the 2005 compensation rates for professional staff and 

adjusted by an overhead and profit rate of 167 percent. The year 2005 was used for consistency 

in order to have the same basis for all costs. All costs were later converted to 2008 dollars for 

purposes of presenting costs associated with the rule in present day terms. 

4.3.1.3 Reporting 

Most engines affected by this rule will be subject to reporting requirements such as 

reading instructions, training personnel, submitting an initial notification, submitting a 

notification of performance test(s), and submitting a compliance report. However, owners and 

operators of engines less than 100 HP, existing stationary emergency engines, and existing 

stationary engines less than 300 HP located at area sources are not subject to any specific 

reporting requirements. For stationary non-emergency limited use CI engines that operate less 

than 100 hours per year, EPA is finalizing less burdensome reporting requirements by requiring 

these engines to submit compliance reports on an annual basis, as opposed to semiannually as is 

required for other engines subject to numerical emission limitations. The reporting requirements 

are based on $68 per hour for technical labor to comply with the reporting requirements. It is 

estimated that a total of 14 hours will be needed, and 13 hours for limited use engines. 

4.3.1.4 Monitoring 

The cost of monitoring includes the purchase of a continuous parametric monitoring 

system (CPMS). Non-emergency engines greater than 500 hp that have add-on controls are 

 

5

U.S. Department of Labor, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm 
4-19 

required to use a CPMS to monitor the catalyst inlet temperature and pressure drop across the 

catalyst to ensure those parameters do not exceed the operating limitations. The cost of 

purchasing and operating a CPMS was obtained from vendor quotes received for previous 

rulemaking and adjusted to 2008 dollars.6

 The capital cost of a CPMS for a large engine facility 

is $531. It is estimated that 30 hours per year is necessary to operate and maintain the CPMS and 

that 6 hours per year (or 0.5 hours per month) is needed to record information from the CPMS. It 

is assumed that all engines subject to continuous monitoring would be located at large engine 

facilities. 

4.3.1.5 Performance Testing 

Initial performance testing is required for non-emergency engines greater than 100 hp at 

major sources and non-emergency engines greater than 300 hp located at area sources. The cost 

of conducting a performance test on a CI engine is based on cost information gathered for 

previous rulemakings.7

 The performance testing cost is based the use of a portable analyzer and 

was estimated to cost $1,000 per day of testing. This daily performance test cost was adjusted to 

2008 dollars and was estimated to be $1,165. Because the regulation requires three-1 hour runs, 

EPA assumed that two engines could be tested at each facility in one day. Therefore, the 

estimated impacts performance testing cost will be assumed to be $583 per engine (or half of the 

$1,165 daily cost) using a portable analyzer. 

4.3.1.6 Work Practices 

The costs for performing work practices for CI engines less than 100 hp located at a 

major source was assumed to be negligible and were not included in these impact calculations. 

The work practices are based on engine maintenance procedures that the owner/operators 

perform regardless of the regulation. These work practices include: 

 Changing the oil and filter; 

 Inspecting the air cleaner and replacing as necessary; and 

 Inspecting all hoses and belts, and replacing as necessary. 

EPA believes that these work practices will limit HAP emissions from these engines, 

because these work practices ensure that the engine is operating efficiently. Owner/operators of 

these engines regularly perform these work practices as part of the preventive maintenance 

 

6

Part A of the Supporting Statement for Standard Form 83 Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, 

November 17, 2003. 7

Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Sims Roy, 

EPA/OAQPS/ESD/Combustion Group, Portable Emissions Analyzer Cost Information, August 31, 2005. 
4-20 

schedule for the engine. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to not include these work 

practice costs in the impacts determination. 

4.3.1.7 Management Practices 

The costs for performing management practices for non-emergency CI engines less than 

or equal to 300 hp located at area sources and all emergency engines located at area sources was 

assumed to be negligible and were not included in these impact calculations. The management 

practices are based on engine maintenance procedures that the owner/operators perform 

regardless of the regulation. These management practices include: 

 Changing the oil and filter; 

 Inspecting the air cleaner, and replacing as necessary; and 

 Inspecting all hoses and belts, and replacing as necessary. 

EPA believes that these work practices will limit HAP emissions from these engines, 

because these work practices ensure that the engine is operating efficiently. Owner/operators of 

these engines regularly perform these work practices as part of the preventive maintenance 

schedule for the engine. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to not include these work 

practice costs in the impacts determination. 

4.3.2 Major Sources 

The cost impacts for stationary RICE vary depending on the engine type and size. The 

following sections describe the specific costs that apply to each subcategory of CI engines 

located at major sources.

4.3.2.1 All CI Engines hp < 100 

The costs associated with CI engines less than 100 hp include minimal requirements. 

Owners and operators of engines less than 100 hp are required to follow the manufacturer’s 

emission-related O&M requirements or must develop their own maintenance plan to follow. 

Emergency engines must record the hours of operation, which is estimated at one hour per year 

at $72 per hour. 

4.3.2.2 Non-emergency CI Engines 100 ≤ hp ≤ 300 hp 

The costs associated with nonemergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 hp and 

less than or equal to 300 hp include the cost of an initial test, recordkeeping, and reporting. In 

addition, EPA assumes that some of these engines will be required to install a control device to 
4-21 

meet the emissions standard. To estimate the number of CI engines that would be required to 

install control technology, EPA compared the emission rate of the test that was used to determine 

the MACT floor with the CI nonroad emission factors.8

 EPA found that only the emission factors 

for Tier 0 CI engines were greater than the 1.2 g/hp-hr value that was used to set the MACT 

floor. Therefore, it was assumed that Tier 1 engines and greater would be able to meet the final 

emission standard. The model year for Tier 1 engines begins in 1997 for 100 to 175 CI engines, 

and 1996 for 175 to 300 hp CI engines. Using the model year data in the population 

memorandum, EPA estimated that 35 percent of the existing CI engines greater than or equal to 

100 hp and less than or equal to 300 hp are Tier 0 engines and would need to install control 

technology to meet the emission standard. The cost estimates for this subcategory of engines do 

not account for possible fuel price increases that may result from using ultra-low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD). EPA estimated the cost of lubricity additives to ULSD would increase the cost of the 

fuel by 0.2 cents per gallon,9

 which EPA believes is negligible. In addition, there are no 

additional maintenance requirements for owner/operators using ULSD in existing diesel engines. 

Many owner/operators have found that time between oil changes can be extended for engines 

using ULSD fuel, which would decrease the overall cost of switching to ULSD fuel. Therefore, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to not include any costs for switching to ULSD in the impacts 

for this NESHAP. 

4.3.2.3 Nonemergency CI Engines > 300 hp 

The costs associated with non-emergency CI engines above 300 hp include the cost of 

installing and operating an oxidation catalyst for reducing HAP, as well as the cost of installing 

an open crankcase ventilation system. Non-emergency CI engines greater than 500 hp are also 

subject to continuous monitoring requirements. In addition, owners and operators must conduct 

an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitation. Owners and 

operators of engines above 500 hp must conduct subsequent performance testing every 8,760 

hours or 3 years, whichever comes first to demonstrate compliance. The cost estimates for this 

subcategory of engines do not account for possible fuel price increases that may result from 

using ULSD. EPA estimated the cost of lubricity additives to ULSD would increase the cost of 

the fuel by 0.2 cents per gallon,10 which EPA believes is negligible. In addition, there are no 

 

8

Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling--Compression-Ignition, U.S. EPA, Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, EPA420-P-04-009, Revised April 2004. 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/420p04009.pdf 9

Memorandum from Melanie Taylor and Brad Nelson, AGTI to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group, 

Lubricity of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel, June 2, 2004. 10Memorandum from Melanie Taylor and Brad Nelson, AGTI to Sims Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group, 

Lubricity of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel, June 2, 2004. 
4-22 

additional maintenance requirements for owner/operators using ULSD in existing diesel engines. 

Many owner/operators have found that time between oil changes can be extended for engines 

using ULSD fuel, which would decrease the overall cost of switching to ULSD fuel. Therefore, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to not include any costs for switching to ULSD in the impacts 

for this NESHAP. 

4.3.2.4 Emergency CI Engines 

The costs associated with emergency CI engines greater than 300 hp and less than or 

equal to 500 hp (emergency CI engines above 500 hp were subject to an earlier rule and are not 

subject to further regulation in this rule) include minimal recordkeeping requirements. The 

owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s emission-related operating and 

maintenance (O&M) requirements or must develop their own maintenance plan to follow and 

must also keep records of the hours of operation. It is estimated that one hour per year at $68 per 

hour would be sufficient to record the hours of operation. No costs were included in the impacts 

for following the manufacturer’s emission-related O&M plan, because it is expected that 

owner/operators will follow this plan regardless of the regulation. 

4.3.3 Area Sources 

4.3.3.1 All Emergency CI Engines 

The costs associated with emergency CI engines include recordkeeping requirements for 

tracking the hours of operation, but these engines are not subject to any performance testing. The 

owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s emission-related O&M requirements or 

must develop their own maintenance plan to follow. It is estimated that one hour per year at $68 

per hour would be sufficient to record the hours of operation. Emergency CI engines at areas 

sources will be subject to management practices, rather numerical emission limits. The 

management practices do not require aftertreatment controls. Therefore, no control costs have 

been estimated for these engines. These engines will be subject to management practices which 

are not included in the costs, because it is assumed that these management practices are 

performed regardless of the regulation. 

4.3.3.2 Non-emergency CI Engines ≤ 300 hp 

The costs associated with nonemergency CI engines less than or equal to 300 hp are 

minimal and only include following the manufacturer’s emission-related O&M requirements or 

the owner or operator’s own maintenance plan. These engines are not subject to any numerical 

emission limitations, therefore no control costs apply and no performance testing is required. 
4-23 

These engines will be subject to management practices which are not included in the costs, 

because it is assumed that these management practices are done regardless of the regulation. 

4.3.3.3 Non-emergency CI Engines > 300 hp 

The costs associated with nonemergency CI engines above 300 hp include the cost of 

installing and operating an oxidation catalyst for reducing HAP, as well as the cost of installing 

an open crankcase ventilation system. Nonemergency CI engines greater than 500 hp are also 

subject to continuous monitoring requirements. In addition, owners and operators must conduct 

an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitation and engines 

above 500 hp must conduct subsequent performance testing every 8,760 hours or 3 years, 

whichever comes first. The cost estimates for this subcategory of engines do not account for 

possible fuel price increases that may result from using ULSD. The cost estimates for this 

subcategory of engines do not account for possible fuel price increases that may result from 

using ULSD. EPA estimated the cost of lubricity additives to ULSD would increase the cost of 

the fuel by 0.2 cents per gallon, which EPA believes is negligible. In addition, there are no 

additional maintenance requirements for owner/operators using ULSD in existing diesel engines. 

Many owner/operators have found that time between oil changes can be extended for engines 

using ULSD fuel, which would decrease the overall cost of switching to ULSD fuel. Therefore, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to not include any costs for switching to ULSD in the impacts 

for this NESHAP. 

A summary of the total costs associated with the rule by major source and area source 

categories is found in Table 4-2. A summary of the costs by NAICS codes is found in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-4 provides a summary of costs by engine size, and a presentation of the number of 

engines by engine size is in Table 4-5. All cost estimates are from “RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration Amendment – Cost and Environmental Impacts RICE,” prepared by Tanya 

Parise, EC/R, Inc. for Melanie King, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
4-24 

Table 4-2. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Costs for the CI RICE NESHAPa 

Size 

Range 

(hp) 

Non-Emergency 

CI Capital 

Control Cost 

Non-Emergency 

CI Annual 

Control Cost Initial Test Recordkeeping Reporting 

Monitoring – 

Capital Cost 

Monitoring – 

Annual Cost 

Total Annual 

Costs 

Total Capital 

Costs 

Major Sources 

50–100 $0 $0 $0 $6,654,888 $0 $0 $0 $6,654,888 $0 

100–175 $24,057,778 $9,918,465 $14,150,269 $8,719,731 $5,973, 016 $0 $0 $38,761,480 $24,057,778 175–300 $35,917,270 $10,740,189 $10,730,759 $6,612,548 $4,529,595 $0 $0 $32,613,092 $35,917,270 300–500 $107,841,136 $26,722,727 $5,645,923 $3,479,152 $2,383,219 $0 $0 $38,231,021 $107,841,136 500–600 $13,126,952 $3,020,849 $500,530 $61,688 $211,280 $481,765 $2,220,755 $6,015,102 $13,608,716 600–750 $8,240,540 $1,824,295 $256,204 $31,576 $108,147 $246,599 $1,136,729 $3,356,951 $8,487,139 

>750 $26,903,091 $5,618,803 $565,163 $69,653 $238,563 $543,975 $2,507,521 $8,999,703 $27,447,066 

Total $216,086,768 $57,845,329 $31,848,848 $25,629,236 $13,443,820 $1,272,338 $5,865,005 $134,632,238 $217,359,106 

Area Sources 

50–100 $0 $0 $0 $9,183,746 $0 $0 $0 $9,183,746 $0 

100–175 $0 $0 $0 $12,033,196 5,231,824 $0 $0 $17,265,000 $0 175–300 $0 $0 $0 $9,125,316 $3,967,529 $0 $0 $13,092,845 $0 300–600 269, 176, 789 $64,764,947 $12,533,931 $7,180,954 $5,290,738 $4,021,343 $18,536,893 $108,307,463 $273,198,131 

600–750 67,576,980 $14,964,227 $2,101,015 $1,203,716 $886,866 $674,082 $9,321,806 $28,473,630, $68,251,062, 

>750 177,179,667 $37,004,585 $3,722,077 $2,132,457 $1,571,138 $1,194,178 $16,514,152 $60,944,409 $178,373,845 

Total 513,933,435 $116,729,759 $18,357,024 $40,859,384 $16,948, 096 $5,889,603 $44,372,851 $237,267,114 $519,823,039 

Grand Total 

Total $730,020,203 $174,575,088 $50,205,872 $66,480,620 $30,391,916 $7,161,941 $50,237,856 $371,899,352 $737,182,145 

a Costs are presented in 2008 dollars. 
4-25 

Table 4-3. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAPa 

NAICS 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Electric Power Generation (2211) 

$161,766,376 $90,982,105 $464,947,798 $202,463,116 $626,714,174 $293,445,222 

Hospitals (622110) $20,220,797 $11,372,763 $0 $0 $20,220,797 $11,372,763 Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111) 

$2,374,401 $3,807,478 $1,590,115 $2,597,836 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112) 

$2,374,401 $3,807,478 $1,590,115 $2,597,836 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 

National Security (92811) $20,220,797 $11,372,763 $51,660,866 $22,495,902 $71,881,663 $33,868,665 Hydro Power Units (335312) $0 $16,637 $0 $22,959 $0 $39,597 Irrigation Sets (335312) $10,294,073 $11,791,567 $34,145 $5,208,084 $10,328218 $16,999,651 Welders (333992) $108,260 $1,481,447 $0 $1,881,380 $108,260 $3,362,827 Total $217,359,106 $134,632,238 $519,823,039 $237,267,114 $737,182,145 $371,899,352 a Costs are presented in 2008 dollars. 
4-26 

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Sizea 

NAICS 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Electric Power Generation (2211)

50–100 hp $0 $3,396,123 $0 $5,272,480 $0 $8,668,603 100–175 hp $13,406,919 $21,600,998 $0 $10,824,132 $13,406,919 $32,425,129 175–300 hp $23,012,914 $20,895,861 $0 $9,437,454 $23,012,914 $30,333,314 

300–600 hp $96,907,266 $35,304,866 $245,239,035 $97,223,277 $342,146,301 $132,528,144 600–750 hp $6,789,032 $2,685,292 $61,419,814 $25,623,705 $68,208,846 $28,308,997 >750 hp $21,650,245 $7,098,966 $158,288,950 $54,082,069 $179,939,195 $61,181,035 

Total 2211 $161,766,376 $90,982,105 $464,947,798 $202,463,116 $626,717,174 $293,445,222 Hospitals (622110)

50–100 hp $0 $424,515 $0 $0 $0 $424,515 

100–175 hp $1,675,865 $2,700,125 $0 $0 $1,675,865 $2,700,125 

175–300 hp $2,876,614 $2,611,983 $0 $0 $2,876,614 $2,611,983 300–600 hp $12,113,408 $4,413,108 $0 $0 $12,113,408 $4,413,108 600–750 hp $848,629 $335,662 $0 $0 $848,629 $335,662 >750 hp $2,706,281 $887,371 $0 $0 $2,706,281 $887,371 

Total 622110 $20,220,797 $11,372,763 $0 $0 $20,220,797 $11,372,763 Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111)

50–100 hp $0 $420,256 $0 $579,954 $0 $1,000,210 

100–175 hp $2,026,868 $3,265,655 $0 $1,454,578 $2,026,868 $4,720,233 175–300 hp $3,592 $3,261 $0 $1,309 $3,592 $4,571 

300–600 hp $151,812 $55,308 $341,498 $135,384 $493,310 $190,692 600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $192,129 $62,998 $1,248,617 $426,611 $1,440,746 $489,609 

Total 211111 $2,374,401 $3,807,478 $1,590,115 $2,597,836 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 

(continued) 
4-27 

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Sizea (continued) 

NAICS 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112)

50–100 hp $0 $420,256 $0 $579,954 $0 $1,000,210 100–175 hp $2,026,868 $3,265,655 $0 $1,454,578 $2,026,868 $4,720,233 175–300 hp $3,592 $3,261 $0 $1,309 $3,592 $4,571 

300–600 hp $151,812 $55,308 $341,498 $135,384 $493,310 $190,692 600–750 hp 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $192,129 $62,998 $1,248,617 $426,611 $1,440,746 $489,609 

Total 211112 $2,374,401 $3,807,478 $1,590,115 $2,597,836 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 National Security (92811)

50–100 hp $0 $424,515 $0 $585,831 $0 $1,010,346 

100–175 hp $1,675,865 $2,700,125 $0 $1,202,681 $1,675,865 $3,902,806 175–300 hp $2,876,614 $2,611,983 $0 $1,048,606 $2,876,614 $3,660,589 300–600 hp $12,113,408 $4,413,108 $27,248,782 $10,802,586 $39,362,190 $15,215,695 600–750 hp $848,629 $335,662 $6,824,424 $2,847,078 $7,673,053 $3,182,740 >750 hp $2,706,281 $887,371 $17,587,661 $6,009,119 $20,293,942 $6,896,489 

Total 92811 $20,220,797 $11,372,763 $51,660,866 $22,495,902 $71,881,663 $33,86,665 Hydro Power Units (335312)

50–100 hp $0 $16,637 $0 $22,959 $0 $39,597 

100–175 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

175–300 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

300–600 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total 335312 $0 $16,637 $0 $22,959 $0 $39,597 

(continued) 
4-28 

Table 4-4. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Sizea (continued) 

NAICS 

Major Source Area Source Total (Major + Area) 

Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Irrigation Sets (335312)

50–100 hp $0 $245,565 $0 $338,880 $0 $584,446 100–175 hp $3,137,134 $5,054,497 $0 $2,251,359 $3,137,134 $7,305,856 175–300 hp $7,143,945 $6,486,744 $0 $2,604,167 $7,143,945 $9,090,911 300–600 hp $12,145 $4,425 $27,320 $10,831 $39,465 $15,255 600–750 hp $849 $336 $6,825 $2,847 $7,674 $3,183 

>750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total 335312 $10,294,073 $11,791,567 $34,145 $5,208,984 $10,328,218 $16,999,651 Welders (333992)

50–100 hp $0 $1,307,020 $0 $1,803,688 $0 $3,110,708 

100–175 hp $108,260 $174,427 $0 $77,693 $108,260 $252,119 

175–300 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

300–600 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

600–750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

>750 hp $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total 333992 $108,260 $1,481,447 $0 $1,881,380 $108,260 $3,362,827 

Grand Total Total $217,359,106 $134,632,238 $519,823,039 $237, 267,114 $737,182,145 $371,899,352 

a Costs are presented in 2008 dollars. 
4-29 

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Number of Enginesa 

NAICS 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Electric Power Generation (2211)

50–100 hp 47,324 79,859 127,183 $0 $8,668,603 100–175 hp 67,713 114,266 181,980 $13,406,919 $32,425,129 175–300 hp 59,039 99,627 158,666 $23,012,914 $30,333,314 300–600 hp 42,113 97,919 140,032 $342,146,301 $132,528,144 600–750 hp 1,760 16,455 18,215 $68,208,846 $28,308,997 >750 hp 3,828 28,746 32,574 $179,939,195 $61,181,035 

Total 2211 221,777 436,872 658,649 $626,717,174 $293,445,222 Hospitals (622110)

50–100 hp 5,916 0 5,916 $0 $424,515 

100–175 hp 8,464 0 8,464 $1,675,865 $2,700,125 175–300 hp 7,380 0 7,380 $2,876,614 $2,611,983 300–600 hp 5,264 0 5,264 $12,113,408 $4,413,108 600–750 hp 220 0 220 $848,629 $335,662 >750 hp 479 0 479 $2,706,281 $887,371 

Total 622110 27,722 0 27,722 $20,220,797 $11,372,763 Crude Petroleum & NG Production (211111)

50–100 hp 5,856 8,784 14,640 $0 $1,000,210 

100–175 hp 10,237 15,355 25,592 $2,026,868 $4,720,233 175–300 hp 9 14 23 $3,592 $4,571 300–600 hp 66 136 202 $493,310 $190,692 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 34 227 261 $1,440,746 $489,609 

Total 211111 16,202 24,517 40,719 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 

(continued) 
4-30 

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Number of Enginesa

(continued) 

NAICS 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Natural Gas Liquid Producers (211112)

50–100 hp 5,856 8,784 14,640 $0 $1,000,210 100–175 hp 10,237 15,355 25,592 $2,026,868 $4,720,233 175–300 hp 9 14 23 $3,592 $4,571 300–600 hp 66 136 202 $493,310 $190,692 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 34 227 261 $1,440,746 $489,609 

Total 211112 16,202 24,517 40,719 $3,964,516 $6,405,314 National Security (92811)

50–100 hp 5,916 8,873 14,789 $0 $1,010,346 

100–175 hp 8,464 12,696 21,160 $1,675,865 $3,902,806 175–300 hp 7,380 11,070 18,450 $2,876,614 $3,660,589 300–600 hp 5,264 10,880 16,144 $39,362,190 $15,215,695 600–750 hp 220 1,828 2,048 $7,673,053 $3,182,740 >750 hp 479 3,194 3,672 $20,293,942 $6,896,489 

Total 92811 27,722 48,541 76,263 $71,881,663 $33,868,665 Hydro Power Units (335312)

50–100 hp 232 348 580 $0 $39,597 

100–175 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 175–300 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 300–600 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 

Total 335312 232 348 580 $0 $39,597 

(continued) 
4-31 

Table 4-5. Summary of Major Source and Area Source NAICS Costs for the CI RICE NESHAP – by Number of Enginesa

(continued) 

NAICS 

Number of Engines Total (Major + Area) 

Major Area Total Capital Cost Annual Cost 

Irrigation Sets (335312)

50–100 hp 3,422 5,133 8,555 $0 $584,446 100–175 hp 15,845 23,767 39,611 $3,137,134 $7,305,856 175–300 hp 18,327 27,491 45,819 $7,143,945 $9,090,911 300–600 hp 5 11 16 $39,465 $15,255 600–750 hp 0 2 2 $7,674 $3,183 >750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 

Total 335312 37,599 56,403 94,003 $10,328,218 $16,999,651 Welders (333992)

50–100 hp 18,213 27,319 45,532 $0 $3,110,708 

100–175 hp 547 820 1,367 $108,260 $252,119 175–300 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 300–600 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 600–750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 >750 hp 0 0 0 $0 $0 

Total 333992 18,760 28,140 46,899 $108,260 $3,362,827 Grand Total Total 366,217 619,337 957,832 $737,182,145 $371,899,352 a Costs are presented in 2008 dollars. 
4-32 

4.4 Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions 

The emissions reductions associated with the proposed reconsidered rule are based on 

requiring emission standards that are based on applying add-on controls to non-emergency CI 

engines greater than 500 HP. Baseline emissions from the current population of stationary RICE 

less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources and existing stationary RICE at area sources were 

calculated based on non-emergency CI engines operating 1,000 hrs/yr, and emergency CI 

engines operating 50 hrs/yr. While the amendments the EPA is proposing for stationary 

emergency engines increases the time allowed for participation in emergency demand response 

programs and for certain engines to operate for peak shaving or other income-generating 

activities, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is still representative of emergency engine 

operation. There is a wide range in how much stationary emergency engines operate. Some 

emergency units operate well below 50 hrs/yr, while some emergency engines are run above 50 

hrs/yr. However, on average and to be conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hrs/yr is still 

representative and consequently to estimate emissions from stationary emergency engines, the 

EPA has retained the assumption that 50 hrs/yr is appropriate. The following additional 

assumptions were used: 

Emission Factors: 

Engine HAP 

(lb/hp-hr) 

CO 

(lb/hr) 

PM 

(lb/hp-hr) 

SO2 

(lb/hp-hr) 

CI 1.07x10-4 6.96x10-1 7.00x10-4 0.00809xS1

*

*Obtained from AP-42, section 3.4 where S1 is sulfur content. 

 

Control Efficiencies: 

Technology HAP CO PM 

Oxidation catalyst 70% 70% 30% 

 Based on the above assumptions and the existing population of engines shown earlier in 

this section, the HAP, CO, and PM baseline emissions and reductions were calculated 

The estimated baseline emissions for each HAP and criteria pollutant in tons per year 

(tpy) for the final rule are shown in Table 4-6. The estimated emission reductions for each HAP 

and criteria pollutant reductions in tons per year (tpy) as a result of the final rule are shown in 

Table 4-7. In addition, it is expected that additional PM reductions will be achieved by the 

requirement to use ULSD for CI engines that install a DOC. The use of ULSD reduces the 
4-33 

formation of sulfates in the exhaust gas, therefore reducing the emission of these sulfate PM 

emissions from the exhaust. EPA has estimated that the use of ULSD can reduce PM emissions 

by 5 to 30 percent depending on the sulfur concentration of the diesel fuel that is being replaced. 

Because EPA has no information on the type of fuel that CI engines are currently using, the PM 

reductions from switching to ULSD were not quantified and included in this summary. 

The EPA is proposing that existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject to state and locally enforceable rules requiring 

replacement of the engine by January 1, 2018 can meet management practices under the RICE 

NESHAP for a period of 2 years until May 3, 2015. The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are scheduled to be replaced under the 

local rule. The EPA has not identified any engines outside the San Joaquin Valley APCD area 

that are in the same or similar situation and although the EPA does not preclude the possibility 

that there are additional such engines, the EPA has no information on this. Therefore, for 

purposes of estimating reductions under the proposed amendments, the EPA has subtracted only 

those 409 engines from the previous control cost estimate and assumed that an additional 409 

engines will be meeting management practices under the rule. 

The EPA is also proposing to specify that any existing certified Tier 3 CI engine that was 

installed before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This amendment would 

include any existing stationary Tier 3 certified CI engine located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. There are 17 Tier 3 engines (2006 model year) located in San Joaquin Valley that 

were installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. The EPA does not know if there are 

additional engines in other areas that in a similar situation and the EPA has no information 

indicating how many such engines there could be in the rest of the country. Therefore, for 

purposes of calculating reductions, the EPA has included 17 less engines from the control cost 

estimate. These 17 engines would under the proposed amendments be subject to management 

practices. 

 The work practice requirement of using an open crankcase ventilation system to control 

metallic HAP emissions is expected to achieve additional HAP reductions from CI engines. 

However, the metallic HAP emission reduction cannot be quantified because of the difficulty of 

measuring metallic HAP from the crankcase exhaust. Therefore, the metallic HAP reductions 

are not included in the total emission reductions. Also, all PM emissions are assumed to be in 

the fine particle emissions; thus all emissions and PM emission reductions are assumed to be 

PM2.5. 
4-34 

 

Table 4-6. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Emissions for the 

CI RICE NESHAP in 2013 

Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Emissions for the RICE NESHAP 

Size Range (HP) Baseline Emissions (tpy) 

HAP CO NOx PM SO2 VOC 

Major Sources 

50-100 89 7,745 18,361 584 338 2,412 

100-175 215 10,148 44,107 1,403 811 5,794 

175-300 281 7,696 57,774 1,838 1,062 7,589 

300-500 249 4,049 51,196 1,629 941 6,725 

500-600 25 299 5,201 165 115 683 

600-750 16 153 3,267 104 72 429 

>750 52 338 10,677 340 236 1,402 

Total 927 30,428 190,583 6,064 3,575 25,035 

Area Sources 

50-100 132 11,424 27,083 862 498 3,558 

100-175 316 14,969 65,058 2,070 1,196 8,546 

175-300 414 11,351 85,217 2,711 1,567 11,194 

300-600 613 8,857 106,551 4,009 2,083 16,550 

600-750 154 1,485 26,791 1,008 589 4,161 

>750 404 2,630 70,314 2,645 1,546 10,921 

Total 2,034 50,717 381,015 13,305 7,479 54,930 

 

Grand Total 2,961 81,145 571,598 19,369 11,053 79,965 
4-35 

Table 4-7. Summary of Major Source and Area Source Emissions Reductions for 

the CI RICE NESHAP in 2013 

Summary of Major Source and Area Source Emission Reductions for the CI RICE NESHAP 

Size Range (HP) 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 

HAP CO PM VOC 

Major Sources 

50-100 0 0 0 0 

100-175 44 2,072 123 1,183 

175-300 57 1,571 161 1,549 

300-500 145 2,362 407 3,923 

500-600 18 209 50 478 

600-750 11 107 31 300 

>750 36 236 102 982 

Total 312 6,558 874 8,416 

Area Sources 

50-100 0 0 0 0 

100-175 0 0 0 0 

175-300 0 0 0 0 

300-600 363 5,244 1,017 9,798 

600-750 91 879 256 2,463 

>750 239 1,557 671 6,466 

Total 693 7,680 1,944 18,727 

Total 1,005 14,238 2,818 27,142 

28 

PM Estimate for 

2010 Final CI Rule 1,014 14,342 2,844 27,395 

Difference 9 104 26 253 

Note: All emission reduction estimates are from “ RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments- Cost 

and Environmental Impacts ,” prepared by Tanya Parise, Ec/R, Inc. for Melanie King, U.S. EPA, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
5-1 

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, ENERGY IMPACTS, AND SOCIAL COSTS 

The EIA provides decision makers with social cost estimates and enhances understanding 

of how the costs may be distributed across stakeholders (EPA, 2010). Although several 

economic frameworks can be used to estimate social costs for regulations of this size and sector 

scope, OAQPS has typically used partial equilibrium market models. However, the current data 

do not provide sufficient details to develop a market model; the data that are available have little 

or no sector/firm detail and are reported at the national level. In addition, some sectors have 

unique market characteristics (e.g., hospitals) that make developing partial equilibrium models 

difficult. Given these constraints, we believed the direct compliance costs as a reasonable 

approximation of total social costs. In addition, we also provide a qualitative analysis of the 

proposed rule’s economic impact on stakeholder decisions, a qualitative discussion on if 

unfunded mandates occur as a result of this proposed rule, and a qualitative discussion of the 

potential distribution of social costs between consumers and producers. 

5.1 Compliance Costs of the Final Rule 

For the year 2013, EPA’s engineering cost analysis estimates the total annualized costs of 

the final rule are $372 million (in 2008 dollars) (EC/R, 2012). 

As shown in Figure 5-1, the majority of the costs fall on the electric power sector (79%), 

followed by national security (9%). The remaining industries each account for 5% or less of the 

total annualized cost. The industrial classification for each engine is taken from the Power 

Systems Research (PSR) database, which is the major source of data for the engines affected by 

the final rule. The PSR database used as a basis for the analyses in this RIA contains 

information on both mobile and stationary onroad and nonroad engines, among other data, and 

does so not only for the U.S. but worldwide. PSR has collected such data for more than 30 

years. The Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) uses this database frequently in the 

development of their mobile source rules. 

The annualized compliance costs per engine vary by the engine size (see Figure 5-2). For 

300 hp engines or less, the annualized per-engine costs are below $215 per engine. Per-engine 

costs for higher horsepower (hp) engines range between $950 and $1,900. 

The final rule will affect approximately one million existing stationary diesel engines. As 

shown in Figure 5-3, most of the affected engines fall within the 100 to 175 hp category (31%). 
5-2 

The next highest categories are 50 to 100 hp (24%) and 175 to 300 hp (23%). The remaining 

engines are concentrated in the 300 to 600 hp category (16%). 

Figure 5-1. Distribution of Annualized Direct Compliance Costs by Industry: 2013 

79%

3% 2% 2%

9%

0%

5%

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Power Generation 

(2211)

Hospitals (622110)

Crude Petroleum & NG 

Production (211111)

Natural Gas Liquid Producers 

(211112)

National Security (92811)

Hydro Power Units (335312)

Irrigation Sets (335312)

Welders (333992)
5-3 

Figure 5-2. Average Annualized Cost per Engine by Horsepower Group: 2013 ($2008) 

Figure 5-3. Distribution of Engine Population by Horsepower Group: 2013 

$68

$198 $212

$952

$1,549

$1,877

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

50-100 hp 100-175 hp 175-300 hp 300-600 hp 600-750 hp >750 hp

24%

31%

23%

16%

2%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50-100 hp 100-175 hp 175-300 hp 300-600 hp 600-750 hp >750 hp
5-4 

To assess the size of the compliance cost relative to the value of the goods and services 

for industries using affected engines, we collected Census data for selected industries. At the 

industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of revenue (less than 0.07%) 

(Table 5-1). These industry level cost-to-sales ratios can be interpreted as an average impact on 

potentially affected firms in these industries. Based on the cost-to-sales ratios, we can conclude 

that the annualized cost of this rule should be no higher than 1% of the sales on average for a 

firm in each of these industries. 

Table 5-1. Selected Industry-Level Annualized Compliance Costs as a Fraction of Total 

Industry Revenue: 2008 

Industry 

(NAICS) Industry Name 

Total Annualized 

Costs 

($ million)a

Sales, Shipments, Receipt, or 

Revenue ($ Billion) Cost-to-Sales 

($2007) ($2008) Ratio 

2211 Electric Power Generation $293.4 $440.4 $449.8 0.07% 

622110 Hospitals $11.4 $663.6 $677.8 0.00% 

211111 Crude Petroleum & NG 

Production 

$6.4 $214.2 $218.8 0.00% 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid 

Producers 

$6.4 $42.4 $43.3 0.02% 

92811 National Security $33,9 #N/A #N/A #N/A 

333992 Welders $3.4 $5.2 $5.3 0.06% 

111 and 112 Agriculture using irrigation 

systemsa

$17.0 $27.9 $28.5 0.05% 

a Irrigation engine costs assumed to be passed on to agricultural sectors that use irrigation systems. 

N/A: receipts are Not Available for National Security 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 00: All sectors: 

Geographic Area Series: Economy-Wide Key Statistics: 2007” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (January 4th , 

2010). 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2009. “2008 Farm and 

Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. 

 Nelson, B., EC/R Inc. February 17, 2010. Memorandum to Melanie King, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE. 

5.2 Social Cost Estimate 

As shown in Table 5-1, the compliance costs are only a small fraction of the affected product 

value; this suggests that shift of the supply curve may also be small and result in small changes 

in market prices and consumption. EPA believes the national annualized compliance cost 

estimates provide a reasonable approximation of the social cost of this proposed rule. EPA 

believes this approximation is better for industries whose markets are well characterized as 
5-5 

perfectly competitive. This approximation is less well understood for industries where the 

characterization of markets is not always perfectly competitive such as electric power generation 

whose legal incidence of this rule is approximately 80 percent of the annualized compliance cost. 

However, given the data limitation noted earlier, EPA believes the accounting for compliance 

cost is a reasonable approximation to inform policy discussion in this rulemaking. To shed more 

light on this issue, EPA ran hypothetical analyses and the results are later in the RIA in Tables 5-

2 and 5-3. 

5.3 How Might People and Firms Respond? A Partial Equilibrium Analysis 

Markets are composed of people as consumers and producers trying to maximize utility 

(consumers) and maximize profits (producers) they can given their economic circumstances. One 

way economists illustrate behavioral responses to pollution control costs is by using market 

supply and demand diagrams. The market supply curve describes how much of a good or service 

firms are willing and able to sell to people at a particular price; this curve is typically upward 

sloping because some production resources are fixed. As a result, the cost of producing an 

additional unit typically rises as more units are made. The market demand curve describes how 

much of a good or service consumers are willing and able to buy at some price. Holding other 

factors constant, the quantity demand is assumed to fall when prices rise. In a perfectly 

competitive market, equilibrium price (P0) and quantity (Q0) is determined by the intersection of 

the supply and demand curves (see Figure 5-4). 

5.3.1 Changes in Market Prices and Quantities 

To qualitatively assess how the regulation may influence the equilibrium price and 

quantity in the affected markets, we assumed the market supply function shifts up by the 

additional cost of producing the good or service; the unit cost increase is typically calculated by 

dividing the annual compliance cost estimate by the baseline quantity (Q0) (see Figure 5-4). As 

shown, this model makes two predictions: the price of the affected goods and services are likely 

to rise and the consumption/production levels are likely to fall. 
5-6 

consumer surplus = –[fghd + dhc] 

producer surplus = [fghd – aehb] – bdc 

total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus = 

–[aehb + dhc + bdc] 

Figure 5-4. Market Demand and Supply Model: With and Without Regulation 

The size of these changes depends on two factors: the size of the unit production cost 

increase (supply shift) and differences in how each side of the market (supply and demand) 

responds to changes in price. Economists measure responses using the concept of price elasticity, 

which represents the percentage change in quantity divided by the percentage change in price. 

This dependence has been expressed in the following formula:1

  Demand) of Elasticity Price -Supply of Elasticity Price

Supply of Elasticity Price Share of p uniter- productioncost 

As a general rule, a higher share of the per-unit cost increases will be passed on to 

consumers in markets where 

 goods and services are necessities and people do not have good substitutes that they 

can switch to easily (demand is inelastic) and 

 

1

For examples of similar mathematical models in the public finance literature, see Nicholson (1998), pages 444–447, 

or Fullerton and Metcalf (2002). 
5-7 

 suppliers have excess capacity and can easily adjust production levels at minimal 

costs, or the time period of analysis is long enough that suppliers can change their 

fixed resources; supply is more elastic over longer periods. 

Short-run demand elasticities for energy goods (electricity and natural gas), agricultural 

products, and construction are often inelastic. Specific estimates of short-run demand elasticities 

for these products can be obtained from existing literature. For the short-run demand of energy 

products, the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) buildings module uses values between 

0.1 and 0.3; a 1% increase in price leads to a 0.1 to 0.3% decrease in energy demand (Wade, 

2003). For the short-run demand of agriculture and construction, the EPA has estimated 

elasticities to be 0.2 for agriculture and approximately 1 for construction (EPA, 2004). As a 

result, a 1% increase in the prices of agriculture products would lead to a 0.2% decrease in 

demand for those products, while a 1% increase in construction prices would lead to 

approximately a 1% decrease in demand for construction. Given these demand elasticity 

scenarios (shaded in gray), approximately a 1% increase unit costs would result in a price 

increase of 0.1 to 1% (Table 5-2). As a result, 10 to 100% of the unit cost increase could be 

passed on to consumers in the form of higher goods/services prices. This price increase would 

correspond to a 0.1 to 0.8% decline in consumption in these markets (Table 5-3). 

Table 5-2. Hypothetical Price Increases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs 

Market Demand 

Elasticity 

Market Supply Elasticity 

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 3 

−0.1 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 

−0.3 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 

−0.5 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 

−0.7 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 

−1.0 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 

−1.5 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 

−3.0 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 

5.3.2 Regulated Markets: The Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 

Sector 

Given that the electric power sector bears majority of the estimated compliance costs 

(Figure 5-1) and the industry is also among the last major regulated energy industries in the 

United States (EIA, 2000), the competitive model is not necessarily applicable for this industry. 
5-8 

Table 5-3. Hypothetical Consumption Decreases for a 1% Increase in Unit Costs 

Market Demand 

Elasticity 

Market Supply Elasticity 

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 3 

−0.1 −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% −0.1% 

−0.3 −0.1% −0.2% −0.2% −0.2% −0.2% −0.3% −0.3% 

−0.5 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.3% −0.3% −0.4% −0.4% 

−0.7 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.4% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% 

−1.0 −0.1% −0.2% −0.3% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% −0.8% 

−1.5 −0.1% −0.3% −0.4% −0.5% −0.6% −0.8% −1.0% 

−3.0 −0.1% −0.3% −0.4% −0.6% −0.8% −1.0% −1.5% 

Although the electricity industry continues to go through a process of restructuring, whereby the 

industry is moving toward a more competitive framework (see Figure 5-5 for the status of 

restructuring by state),2

 in many states, electricity prices continue to be fully regulated by Public 

Service Commissions. As a result, the rules and processes outlined by these agencies would 

ultimately determine how these additional regulatory costs would be recovered by affected 

entities. 

5.3.3 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer 

Surplus 

In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in 

consumer and producer surplus, and these values can be determined using the market supply and 

demand model (Figure 5-4). The change in consumer surplus is measured as follows: 

CS = – [Q1 × p] + [0.5 × Q × p]. (5.1) 

Higher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses. Similarly, the change 

in producer surplus is measured as follows: 

PS = [Q1 × p] – [Q1 × t] – [0.5 × Q × (p – t)]. (5.2) 

Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus because the net 

price change (p – t) is negative. However, these losses are mitigated because market prices tend 

to rise. 

 

2

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/print_pages/electricity.pdf. 
5-9 

Figure 5-5. Electricity Restructuring by State 

Source. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010a. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/restructuring/restructure_elect.html>. Last updated September 

2010. 

5.4 Energy Impacts 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that agencies will prepare 

and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as 

“significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy 

actions” as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: 

(1) (i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, 

and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; 

or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

as a significant energy action. 
5-10 

This rule is not a significant energy action as designated by the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA has prepared an analysis of energy 

impacts that explains this conclusion as follows below. 

With respect to energy supply and prices, the analysis in Table 5-1 suggests at the 

industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of revenue (less than 0.7%). 

As a result, we can conclude supply and price impacts should be small. 

To enhance understanding regarding the regulation’s influence on energy consumption, 

we examined publicly available data describing energy consumption for the electric power sector 

that will be affected by this rule. The Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (EIA, 2011) provides energy 

consumption data. As shown in Table 5-4, this industry account for about 0.3% of the U.S. total 

liquid fuels and less than 8% of natural gas. As a result, any energy consumption changes 

attributable to the regulatory program should not significantly influence the supply, distribution, 

or use of energy. 

5.5 Unfunded Mandates 

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 in this section. 
5-11 

Table 5-4. U.S. Electric Powera

 Sector Energy Consumption (Quadrillion BTUs): 2013 

Quantity Share of Total Energy Use 

Distillate fuel oil 0.09 0.1% 

Residual fuel oil 0.22 0.2% 

Liquid fuels subtotal 0.31 0.3% 

Natural gas 7.63 7.9% 

Steam coal 17.37 18.0% 

Nuclear power 8.50 8.8% 

Renewable energyb

 4.63 4.8% 

Electricity Imports 0.12 0.1% 

Total Electric Power Energy Consumptionc

 38.77 40.1% 

Delivered Energy Use 70.56 73.2% 

Total Energy Use 96.66 100.0% 

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. 2011a. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, 

projections for 2013. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=EARLY2012&subject=6-

EARLY2012&table=2-EARLY2012®ion=1-0&cases=full2011-d020911a,early2012-d121011b 

5.5.1 Future and Disproportionate Costs 

The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, 

future compliance costs imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our 

estimates of the future compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in Section 4 of 

this RIA. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the final 

rule on any particular areas of the country, State or local governments, types of communities 

(e.g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments. 

5.5.2 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 earlier in this RIA chapter. This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the 
5-12 

proposal rule on most of the categories mentioned above, and these estimates are presented 

earlier in this RIA chapter. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, today’s rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. 

5.6 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome 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 rule is a nationwide standard that 

reduces air toxics emissions from existing stationary CI engines, thus decreasing the amount of 

such emissions to which all affected populations are exposed. 

5.7 Employment Impact Analysis 

In addition to addressing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, EPA has analyzed 

the impacts of this rulemaking on employment, which are presented in this section. While a 

standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard cost-benefit analysis, 

such an analysis is of particular concern in the current economic climate of sustained high 

unemployment. Executive Order 13563, states, “Our regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation” (emphasis added). Therefore, and consistent with recent 

efforts to characterize the employment effects of economically significant rules, the Agency has 

provided this analysis to inform the discussion of labor demand and employment impacts. 

The analysis includes estimates of certain short-term and on-going labor requirements 

(increase in labor demand) associated with reporting and recordkeeping, and the installation, 

Comment [A1]: Please correct. 
5-13 

operating and maintenance of control devices. EPA estimates that approximately 1,300 fulltime equivalents (FTEs) will be created or supported in the short-term (the compliance period of 

the regulation) and approximately 2,000 FTEs will be created or supported annually on a 

permanent basis. EPA also provides a qualitative discussion of other potential employment 

effects, including both increases and decreases. Because of the uncertainties involved, these sets 

of estimates should not be added in an attempt to characterize the overall employment effect.

We have not quantified the rule’s net effects on the overall labor market, or the potential 

changes to workers’ incomes. EPA continues to explore the relevant theoretical and empirical 

literature and to seek public comments in order to ensure that such estimates are as accurate, 

useful and informative as possible. 

From an economic perspective, labor is an input into producing goods and services; if 

regulation requires that more labor be used to produce a given amount of output, that additional 

labor is reflected in an increase in the cost of production.3

 When an increase in employment 

occurs as a result of a regulation, it is a cost to firms. Moreover, when the economy is at full 

employment, we would not expect an environmental regulation to have an impact on overall 

employment because labor is being shifted from one sector to another. On the other hand, in 

periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may result in a 

short-term net increase in overall employment due to the potential hiring of previously 

unemployed workers by the regulated sector to help meet new requirements (e.g., to install new 

equipment) or by the environmental protection sector to produce new abatement capital. When 

significant numbers of workers are unemployed, the opportunity costs associated with displacing 

jobs in other sectors are likely to be smaller. And, in general, if a regulation imposes high costs 

and does not increase the demand for labor, it may lead to a decrease in employment. 

To provide a partial picture of the employment consequences of this rule, EPA takes two 

approaches. First, EPA uses information such as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

estimates derived from its cost analysis documentation to generate estimates of employment 

impacts. Second, the analysis considers the results of Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) in 

estimating the effects of the regulation on the regulated industry. This approach has been used by 

EPA previously in recent Regulatory Impact Analyses. EPA is interested in public comments on 

 

3

 It should be noted that if more labor must be used to produce a given amount of output, then this implies a decrease 

in labor productivity. A decrease in labor productivity will cause a short-run aggregate supply curve to shift to 

the left, and businesses will produce less, all other things being equal. 

Deleted: jobs

Deleted: jobs

Deleted: in other sectors not regulated by 

the proposed rule

Deleted: effects induced by 

Deleted: in

Deleted: What follows is an overview of 

the various ways that environmental 

regulation can affect employment, 

followed by a discussion of the estimated 

impacts of this rule. 
5-14 

the merits of including information derived in this fashion for assessing the employment 

consequences of regulations. 

 5.7.1 Employment Impacts from Pollution Control Requirements 

Regulations set in motion new orders for pollution control equipment and services. When 

a new regulation is promulgated, one typical response of industry is to order pollution control 

equipment and services in order to comply with the regulation when it becomes effective, while 

closure of plants that choose not to comply is assumed to occur after the compliance date. With 

such a response by industry as a basis, this section presents estimates for short term labor 

requirement needed associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

for this proposed rule. Environmental regulation may increase revenue and employment in the 

environmental technology industry. While these increases represent gains for that industry, they 

are costs to the regulated industries required to install the equipment. As with any pool of labor, 

the gross size of the labor pool does not reflect the net impact on overall employment after 

adjusting for shifts in other sectors. 

Regulated firms may hire workers to design and build pollution controls. Once the 

equipment is installed, regulated firms may hire workers to operate and maintain the pollution 

control equipment – much like they may hire workers to produce more output. Of course, these 

firms may also reassign existing employees to do these activities. A study by Bezdek, Wendling, 

and DiPernab (2008) found that “investments in environmental protection create jobs and 

displace jobs, but the net effect on employment is positive.”4 

Once the equipment is installed, regulated firms may hire workers to operate and 

maintain the 

pollution control equipment – much like they may hire workers to produce more output. 

The focus of this part of the analysis is on labor requirements related to the compliance 

actions of the affected entities within the affected sector 

The employment analysis uses a bottom-up engineering-based methodology to estimate 

employment impacts. The engineering cost analysis summarized in Section 4 of this RIA 

includes estimates of the labor requirements associated with implementing the proposed 

regulations. Each of these labor changes may either be required as part of an initial effort to 

comply with the new regulation or required as a continuous or annual effort to maintain 

 

4

 Environmental protection, the economy, and jobs: National and regional analyses, Roger H. Bezdek, Robert M. 

Wendling and Paula DiPerna, Journal of Environmental Management Volume 86, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 

63-79. 

Deleted: New categories of employment 

have been created in the process of 

implementing regulations. 

Deleted: s

Deleted: employment

Deleted: Environmental regulations also 

support employment in many basic 

industries. In addition to the increase in 

employment in the pollution control 

industry (to fill increased orders for 

pollution control equipment placed by the 

regulated sector), environmental 

regulations also support employment in 

industries that provide intermediate goods 

to the pollution control industry. For 

example, an investment in capital 

expenditures to reduce air pollution 

involves the purchase of abatement 

equipment. The equipment 

manufacturers, in turn, order steel, tanks, 

vessels, blowers, pumps, and chemicals to 

manufacture and install the equipment. 

Comment [A2]: This study is very 

limited in scope. Suggest including 

language “A study of the XYZ sector in 

ABC State in 19XX by Bezdek..” 

Otherwise it suggests that the results are 

more representative than they are. 

Deleted: The majority of the jobs 

associated with added pollution controls 

(e.g., boilermakers, general construction 

workers, etc.) will provide domestic 

employment opportunities, but some 

goods and services demanded and/or 

provided to the pollution control industry 

(e.g., steel, cement, etc.) are 

internationally traded goods.

Formatted: Space After: 6 pt, Line

spacing: At least 12 pt

Deleted: Morgenstern¶

et al. (2002) examined how regulated 

industries respond to regulation. The 

authors found that,¶ ... [1]

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Deleted: . We do not estimate any 

potential¶

changes in labor outside of the affected 

sector. It is important to highlight that 

unlike the typical case where to reduce a ... [2]
5-15 

compliance. We estimate up-front and continual, annual labor requirements by estimating hours 

of labor required and converting this number to full-time equivalents (FTEs) by dividing by 

2,080 (40 hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks). We note that this type of FTE estimate 

cannot be used to make assumptions about the specific number of people involved or whether 

new jobs are created for new employees. 

The results of this employment estimate are presented in Table 5-5 for the proposed 

NESHAP. The tables breaks down the installation, operation, and maintenance estimates by type 

of pollution control evaluated in the RIA and present both the estimated hours required and the 

conversion of this estimate to FTE. For the proposed NESHAP, reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements were estimated requirements were estimated for the entire rule rather than by 

anticipated control requirements; the reporting and recordkeeping estimates are consistent with 

estimates EPA submitted as part of its Information Collection Request (ICR) that is in the 

Supporting Statement for the proposed reconsideration rule. 

The up-front labor requirement is estimated at 1,269 FTEs for the proposed reconsidered 

NESHAP. These up-front FTE labor requirements can be viewed as short-term labor 

requirements required for affected entities to comply with the new regulation. Ongoing 

requirements are estimated at about 1,978 FTEs for the proposed reconsidered NESHAP. These 

ongoing FTE labor requirements can be viewed as sustained labor requirements required for 

affected entities to continuously comply with the new regulation. All of this data is found in the 

cost memorandum for this proposed reconsidered rule, and can be found in the docket for the 

rulemaking. It is important to recognize that these seemingly precise estimates are not to be 

assumed to be exact measures of the employment impacts of this rulemaking. They represent a 

rough approximation of the small positive impacts that this rule may have on employment. 

Table 5-5. Labor-based Employment Estimates for Reporting and Recordkeeping and 

Installing, Operating, and Maintaining Control Equipment Requirements for Proposed 

Reconsideration CI RICE NESHAP 

Source 

Emission 

Control 

Measure 

Projected 

No. of 

Affected 

Units 

Per-Unit 

OneTime 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Total 

OneTime 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Per-Unit 

Annual 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

Total 

Annual 

Labor 

Estimate 

(Hours) 

One-Time 

Full-Time 

Equivalent 

Annual 

Full-Time 

Equivalent 

All CI RICE 

-O&M 

Recordkeeping N/A 366,217 N/A N/A 1 366,217 N/A 176

Non-Emergency 

CI RICE 100- 

Comment [A3]: Is EPA confident about 

4 significant digits? 

Comment [A4]: Is EPA confident about 

4 significant digits? 
5-16 

300 HP 

-Testing Oxidation 

Catalyst 54,697 11 593,496 2 738,404 285 355

-Reporting 8 

Non-Emergency 

CI RICE > 300 

HP 

 3.5 

-Testing Oxidation 

Catalyst + 

Crankcase 

Ventilation

11,966 47 563,170 5 636,134 271 306

-Reporting 8 

-CPMS Install 3.5

-CPMS O&M 1 

-CPMS 

Recording 30 

Area Sources 6

All CI RICE 

-O&M 

Recordkeeping 

Non-Emergency 

CI RICE 100-

300 HP

N/A 569,364 N/A N/A 1 569,364 N/A 274

-Testing N/A 64,095 N/A N/A 2 128,190 N/A 62

-Reporting 

Non-Emergency 

CI RICE > 300 

HP

Oxidation 

Catalyst + 

Crankcase 

Ventilation 

+ CPMS

31,526 47 1,483,695 5 1,675,922 713 806

-Testing 8

-Reporting 3.5 

--CPMS Install 1

CPMS O&M 30 

-CPMS 

Recording 6 

Total 105 2,640,361 124 4,114,232 1,269 1,978

Note: Full-time equivalents (FTE) are estimated by first multiplying the projected number of affected units by the 

per unit labor requirements and then dividing by 2,080 (40 hours multiplied by 52 weeks). Totals may not sum due 

to independent rounding. 

CPMS = Continuous Parameter Measurement System 

HP = horsepower 

N/A = Not Applicable. 

O&M = Operating and Maintenance 

5.7.2 Employment Impacts within the Regulated Industry 

In recent RIAs we have applied estimates from a study by Morgenstern, Pizer and 

Shih (2002)5

 to derive the employment effects of new regulations within the regulated 

 

5 Morgenstern, R. D., W. A. Pizer, and J. S. Shih. 2002. Jobs versus the Environment: An Industry-Level 

Perspective.‖ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3):412-436. 
5-17 

industry. (See, for example, the Regulatory Impact Analyses for the recently released 

final MATS and final CSAPR regulations). Determining the direction of employment 

effects in the regulated industry is also challenging due to competing effects. Complying 

with the new or more stringent regulation requires additional inputs, including labor, and 

may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms in their 

production processes. Morgenstern, et al. (2002) demonstrate that environmental 

regulations can be understood as requiring regulated firms to add a new output 

(environmental quality) to their product mixes. Although legally compelled to satisfy this 

new demand, regulated firms have to finance this additional production with the proceeds 

of sales of their other (market) products. Satisfying this new demand requires additional 

inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by 

regulated firms in their production processes. 

More specifically, Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) decompose the effect of 

regulation on net employment in the regulated sector into the following three subcomponents:

 The Demand Effect: higher production costs from complying with the regulation will 

raise market prices, reducing consumption (and production), thereby reducing 

demand for labor within the regulated industry. The “extent of this effect depends on 

the cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity of industry 

output.” (p. 416) 

 The Cost Effect: Assuming that the capital/labor ratio in the production process is 

held fixed, as “production costs rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce 

the same amount of output,” (p. 416). For example, to reduce pollutant emissions 

while holding output levels constant, regulated firms may require additional labor. 

 The Factor-Shift Effect: Regulated firms’ production technologies may be more or 

less labor intensive after complying with the regulation (i.e., more/less labor is 

required relative to capital per dollar of output). “Environmental activities may be 

more labor intensive than conventional production,” meaning that “the amount of 

labor per dollar of output will rise.” However, activities may, instead, be less labor 

intensive because “cleaner operations could involve automation and less employment, 

for example.” (p. 416) 
5-18 

The demand effect is expected to have an unambiguously negative effect on employment, 

the cost effect to have an unambiguously positive effect on employment, and the factor-shift 

effect to have an ambiguous effect on employment. Without more information with respect to 

the magnitudes of these three competing effects, it is not possible to predict the net 

environmental employment effect in the regulated sector. 

Using plant-level Census information between the years 1979 and 1991, Morgenstern et 

al. estimate the effects of pollution abatement expenditures on net employment in four highly 

polluting/regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). They 

conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in 

net employment in those sectors. More specifically, their results show that, on average across the 

industries studied, each additional $1 million (in 1987$) spent on pollution abatement results in a 

(statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.55 (+/- 2.24) jobs. As a result, the authors conclude 

that increases in pollution abatement expenditures can have positive effects on employment and 

do not necessarily cause economically significant employment changes. The conclusion is 

similar to Berman and Bui (2001), who found that increased air quality regulation in Los 

Angeles did not cause large employment changes. 

Ideally, the EPA would first apply the methodology of Morgenstern et al. to current 

pollution expenditure and market data for the regulated firms to identify the relationship between 

abatement costs and employment, then use this relationship to extrapolate the effect of new 

projected abatement costs on these firms. Unfortunately, current firm-level abatement cost and 

market characteristics are not available. In addition, there are important differences in the 

markets and regulatory settings analyzed in their study and the setting presented here that lead us 

to conclude that it is inappropriate to utilize their quantitative estimates to estimate the 

employment impacts from this reconsideration proposal. The differences between the underlying 

regulations motivating the abatement expenditures studied in Morgenstern et al. are potentially 

too many to allow for the direct transfer of their quantitative estimates for use in analysis of the 

proposed rule. There are also important differences between the industries affected by this 

proposed rule and the four manufacturing industries studied by Morgenstern et al. For these 

reasons, we conclude there are too many uncertainties as to the comparability of the Morgenstern 

et al. study to apply their estimates to quantify the employment impacts within the regulated 

sector for this proposed regulation. 

Comment [A5]: Is this result 

statistically significant? 
5-19 

 
6-1 

SECTION 6

SMALL ENTITY SCREENING ANALYSIS 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) include small businesses, small 

governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises. 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed reconsideration rule on small 

entities, the screening analysis indicates that this proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (or “SISNOSE”). Under the primary 

cost analyses EPA considered, sales and revenue tests for establishments owned by model small 

entities are less than 3% and only one group of establishments (irrigated farms with receipts less 

than $25,000) has a ratio exceeding 1%. These results are identical to those from the small entity 

analysis done for the final CI RICE rule promulgated in March 2010. 

6.1 Small Entity Data Set 

The industry sectors covered by the proposed rule were identified during the development 

of the cost analysis (Nelson, 2012). The SUSB provides national information on the distribution 

of economic variables by industry and enterprise size (U.S. Census, 2006a, b).1

 The Census 

Bureau and the Office of Advocacy of the SBA supported and developed these files for use in a 

broad range of economic analyses.2 Statistics include the total number of establishments and 

receipts for all entities in an industry; however, many of these entities may not necessarily be 

covered by the final rule. SUSB also provides statistics by enterprise employment and receipt 

size. 

The Census Bureau’s definitions used in the SUSB, which are stated in Section 3 and 

restated here for clarity of presentation, are as follows: 

 Establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. 

 

1

The SUSB data do not provide establishment information for the national security NAICS code (92811) or irrigated 

farms. Since most national security installations are owned by the federal government (e.g., military bases), EPA 

assumes these entities would not be considered small. For irrigated farms, we relied on receipt data provided in 

the 2008 Farm and Irrigation Survey (USDA, 2009). 2

See http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ and http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html for additional details. 
6-2 

 Receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes. 

 Enterprise: An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more 

domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The 

enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multiestablishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise employment and 

annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size 

designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated 

establishments. 

Because the SBA’s business size definitions (SBA, 2010) apply to an establishment’s 

“ultimate parent company,” we assumed in this analysis that the “enterprise” definition above is 

consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for SBREFA 

screening analyses and the terms are used interchangeably. 

6.2 Small Entity Economic Impact Measures 

The analysis generated a set of establishment sales tests (represented as cost-to-receipt 

ratios)3

 for NAICS codes associated with sectors listed in Table 6-1. Although the appropriate 

SBA size definition should be applied at the parent company (enterprise) level, we can only 

compute and compare ratios for a model establishment owned by an enterprise within an SUSB 

size range (employment or receipts). Using the SUSB size range helps us account for receipt 

differences between establishments owned by large and small enterprises and also allows us to 

consider the variation in small business definitions across affected industries. Using 

establishment receipts is also a conservative approach, because an establishment’s parent 

company (the “enterprise”) may have other economic resources that could be used to cover the 

costs of the final rule. 

6.2.1 Model Establishment Receipts and Annual Compliance Costs 

The sales test compares a representative establishment’s total annual engine costs to the 

average establishment receipts for enterprises in several size categories.4

 For industries with SBA 

 

3

The following metrics for other small entity economic impact measures (if applicable) would potentially include 

• small governments (if applicable): “revenue” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

government revenues and 

• small nonprofits (if applicable): “expenditure” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

operating expenses, 4

For the 1 to 20 employee category, we excluded SUSB data for enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises 

did not operate the entire year. 
6-3 

employment size standards, we calculated average establishment receipts for each enterprise 

employment range (Table 6-2).5

 For industries with SBA receipt size standards, we calculated 

Table 6-1. Final NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE): Affected Sectors and SBA Small Business Size Standards 

Industry Description 

Corresponding 

NAICS 

SBA Size Standard for 

Businesses (effective 

November 5 , 2010) Type of Small Entity 

Electric power generation 2211 a Business and government 

Natural Gas Transmission 48621 $7.0 million in annual receipts Business 

General medical & 

surgical hospitals 

622110 $34.5 million in annual receipts Business and government 

Crude petroleum and 

natural gas production 

211111 500 employees Business 

Natural gas liquid 

producers 

211112 500 employees Business 

National security 92811 NA Government 

Hydro power units See NAICS 2211 a Business and government 

Irrigation sets Affects NAICS 111 

and 112 

Generally $750,000 or less in 

annual receipts 

Business 

Welders Affects industries that 

use heavy equipment 

such as construction, 

mining, farming 

Varies by 6-digit NAICS code; 

Example industry: 

NAICS 238 = $14 million in 

annual receipts 

Business 

a

NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122: A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is 

primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total 

electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 

 Source: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2010. “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to 

North American Industry Classification System Codes.” Effective November 5nd, 2010. Downloaded 2/16/12. 

average establishment receipts for each enterprise receipt range (Table 6-3). We included the 

utility sector in the second group, although the SBA size standard for this industry is defined in 

terms of physical units (megawatt hours) versus receipts. Crop and animal production (NAICS 

111 and 112) also have an SBA receipt size standard that defines a small business as receiving 

$750,000 or less in receipts per year. However, SUSB data were not available for these 

industries. Therefore, we conducted the sales test using the following range of establishment 

 

5

We use 2007 Economic Census data in estimating number of establishments by industry. The release schedules for 

different types of 2007 Economic Census data are at 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/pdf/EconCensusScheduleByDate.pdf. 
6-4 

receipts: farms with annual receipts of $25,000 or less, farms with annual receipts of $100,000 or 

less, farms with annual receipts of $500,000 or less, and farms with annual receipts of $750,000 

or less. 
6-5

Table 6-2. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise: 2009 ($2008 Million/establishment) 

SBA Size 

Standard 

for Businesses 

(effective 

November 5, 

2010)

Owned By Enterprises with Employee Range: 

NAICS NAICS Description 

All 

Enterprises 

1–20 

Employees 

20–99 

Employees 

100–499 

Employees 

500+ 

Employees 

211111 Crude petroleum & 

natural gas extraction 

500 employees $30.22 $2.15 $33.02 $151,76 1,570 

211112 Natural gas liquid 

extraction 

500 employees $172.81 $0.30 NA $11.88 NA 

335312 Motor & generator mfg 1,000 employees $18.58 $1.37 $6.14 $15.96 $29.47 333992 Welding & soldering 

equipment mfg 

500 employees $18.51 $1.56 $6.60 $33.25 NA . 

NA = Not available. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail Employment Sizes: 2009.”

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ Downloaded 2/22/12. 
6-6

Table 6-3. Average Receipts for Affected Industry by Enterprise Receipt Range: 2007 ($2008 /establishment) 

SBA Size Standard 

for Businesses 

(effective November 

5, 2010)

Owned By Enterprises with Receipt Range: 

NAICS NAICS Description 

All 

Enterprises 

0–99K 

Receipts

100–

499.9K 

Receipts

500–

999.9K

Receipts

1,000–

4,999.9K 

Receipts 

5,000,000–

9,999,999K 

Receipts 

<10,000K 

Receipts 

10,000–

49,999K 

Receipts

50,000–

99,999K 

Receipts

100,000K+ 

Receipts 

2211 Electric Power 

Generation 

a $261.0 $31.2 $272.5 $724.9 $2,399.5 $7,330.5 $2,617.7 $24,786.

9 

$67,706.

8 

$1,394,051

.0 

622110 Hospitals $34.5 million in annual 

receipts 

$202,058.7 NA $23.82 NA $3,255.0 $7,291.0 $4,692.1 $23,481.

9 

$67,545,

6 

$508,705.8

237310 Highway , street, and 

bride construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$7.74 $0.06 $0.32 $0.84 $2.74 $8.11 $2.00 $22.62 $56.48 $56.81 

237110 Water and sewer line 

and related structures, construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$3.89 $0.06 $0.32 $0.85 $2.73 $8.17 $1.84 $20.62 $45.05 $47.27 

237130 Power 

andcommunication line and related structures construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$3.39 $0.06 $0.31 $0.83 $2.52 $7.75 $1.32 $16.84 $34.50 $23.86 

237990 zOther heavy and 

civil engineering construction 

$33.5 million in Annual Receipts 

$2.66 $0.06 $0.30 $0.83 $2.48 $7.76 $0.99 $18.72 $40.53 $42.35 

92811 National Security NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Notes: . National Security is included in this table but does not have size standards. a NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122: A firm in these industries is defined as small by SBA if, including its affiliates, it is 

primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 

NA = Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail Employment Sizes: 2009.”

<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ 
6-7 

Annual entity compliance costs vary depending on the size of the diesel engines used at 

the affected establishment. Absent facility-specific information, we computed per-entity 

compliance costs based for three different cases based on representative establishments—Cases 

1, 2, and 3 (see Table 6-4). Each representative establishment differs based on the size and 

number of diesel engines being used. Compliance costs are calculated by summing the total 

annualized compliance costs for the relevant engine categories, dividing the sum by the total 

existing population of those engines, and multiplying the average engine cost by the number of 

engines assumed to be at the establishment. Since NAICS 2211 and 622110 are fundamentally 

different than other industries considered in this analysis, we used different assumptions about 

what constitutes the representative establishment and report these assumptions separately. 

 Case 1: The representative establishment for all industries uses three 750+ hp engines 

with an average compliance cost of $1,878 per engine, resulting in a total annualized 

compliance cost of approximately $5,634 for this representative establishment. 

 Case 2: The representative establishment in NACIS 2211 and 622110 uses two 50 to 

750+ hp engines with an average compliance cost of $419 per engine, resulting in a 

total annualized compliance cost of $838 for this representative establishment. For all 

other industries, the representative establishment uses two 50 to 300 hp engines with 

an average compliance cost of $146 per engine, resulting in a total compliance cost of 

$292 for this representative establishment. 

 Case 3: The representative establishment for all industries uses two 50 to 100 hp 

engines with an average compliance cost of $68 per engine, resulting in a total 

compliance cost of $137 for this representative establishment. 

EPA believes that small entities are most likely to face costs similar to Case 2 (columns 

shaded in gray in Table 6-4) because most of the engines to be affected by this proposal in 

NAICS 335312, 333992, 211111, and 211112 are under 300 hp capacity, and most small entities 

in these industries will own engines of this size or smaller. This is corroborated by Figure 6-1 

and 6-2 which shows the distribution of engine population and compliance costs by engine size 

for all industries. However, it is difficult to make a similar claim for NAICS 2211 and 622110 

based on the existing distribution of engines in these industries.6

 As noted earlier in the RIA, 

only 20 percent of the existing distribution of engines is expected to be classified as nonemergency. 

 

6

This claim also cannot be made for NAICS 92811: National Security. However, since most national security 

installations are owned by the federal government (e.g., military bases), EPA assumes these entities would not be 

considered small. 
6-8 

For the sales test, we divided the representative establishment compliance costs reported 

in Table 6-4 by the representative receipts reported in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. This is known as the 

cost-to-receipt (i.e., sales) ratio, or the “sales test.” The “sales test” is the impact 

Table 6-4. Representative Establishment Costs Used for Small Entity Analysis ($2008) 

 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 

 

NAICS 2211, 

622110 

(+750 hp 

only) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(+750 hp 

only) 

NAICS 2211, 

622110 

(50–750+ hp) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(50–300 hp) 

NAICS 2211, 

622110 

(50–100 hp 

only) 

All Other 

NAICS 

(50–100 hp 

only) 

Total Annualized Costs ($) $62,068,406 $7,875,707 $304,817,985 $40,407,406 $9,093,118 $6,745,516 

Engine Population 33,052 4,194 727,090 276,374 133,099 98,736 

Average Engine Cost 

($/engine) 

$1,878 $1,878 $419 $146 $68 $68 

Assumed Engines Per 

Establishment 

3 3 2 2 2 2 

Total Annualized Costs per 

Establishment 

$5,634 $5,634 $838 $292 $137 $137 

* Engine population estimates taken from “Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE,” 

prepared by Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc. for Melanie King, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, February 19, 2010. 
6-9 

Figure 6-1. Distribution of Engine Population by Size for All Industries 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Power

Generation

(2211)

Hospitals

(622110)

Crude Petroleum

&NG Production

(211111)

Natural Gas

Liquid Producers

(211112)

National Security

(92811)

Hydro Power

Units (335312)

Irrigation Sets

(335312)

Welders

(333992)

>750 hp

600‐750 hp

300‐600 hp

175‐300 hp

100‐175 hp

50‐100 hp
6-10 

Figure 6-2. Distribution of Compliance Costs by Engine Size for All Industries 

methodology EPA employs in analyzing small entity impacts as opposed to a “profits test,” in 

which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits. 

This is because revenues or sales data are commonly available data for entities normally 

impacted by EPA regulations and profits data normally made available are often not the true 

profit earned by firms because of accounting and tax considerations. Revenues as typically 

published are usually correct figures and are more reliably reported when compared to profit 

data. The use of a “sales test” for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking such as this 

one is consistent with guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA7

 and is consistent 

with guidance published by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost as a 

 

7

The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types of small business analysis that should be 

considered can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf, pp. 24-25. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Power

Generation

(2211)

Hospitals

(622110)

Crude Petroleum

&NG Production

(211111)

Natural Gas

Liquid Producers

(211112)

National Security

(92811)

Hydro Power

Units (335312)

Irrigation Sets

(335312)

Welders

(333992)

>750 hp

600‐750 hp

300‐600 hp

175‐300 hp

100‐175 hp

50‐100 hp
6-11 

percentage of total revenues is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation 

to increases on large entities.8

If the cost-to-receipt ratio is less than 1%, then we consider the final rule to not have a 

significant impact on the establishment company in question. We summarize the industries with 

cost-to-receipt ratios exceeding 1% below: 

Primary Analysis: 

 Case 2: NAICS 2211 

 Case 3: No industries 

Sensitivity Analysis (unlikely): 

 Case 1: NAICS 211111, 211112, with less than 20 employees, NAICS 2211 with 

receipts less than $500,000 per year, NAICS 234 with receipts less than $500,000 per 

year, and irrigated farms with receipts of $500,000 or less per year 

In the Case 2 primary analysis, only establishments in NAICS 2211 with receipts less 

than $100,000 per year have cost-to-receipt ratios above 1%. These establishments represent less 

than 5 percent of affected small establishments. However, establishments earning this level of 

receipts are likely to be using smaller engines than those assumed in Case 2, such as 50 to 100 hp 

engines. The results of our Case 3 analysis demonstrate that these establishments are not 

significantly impacted when taking this engine size into account. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, we certify 

that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of this proposal action to all affected 

small entities across all industries affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs greater than 1 percent of sales is less than 2 percent according 

to this analysis. We thus conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (SISNOSE) for this proposed rule. 

Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule on 

small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA took special steps to ensure that the 

burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with industry 

 

8

U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, May 2003. 
6-12 

trade associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, EPA proposes 

to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of area sources affected under this RICE rule with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 

to such impacts.

6.3 Small Government Entities 

The rule also covers sectors that include entities owned by small and large governments. 

However, given the uncertainty and data limitations associated with identifying and 

appropriately classifying these entities, we computed a “revenue” test for a model small 

government, where the annualized compliance cost is a percentage of annual government 

revenues (U.S. Census, 2005a,b). The use of a “revenue test” for estimating impacts to small 

governments for a rulemaking such as this one is consistent with guidance offered by EPA on 

compliance with SBREFA,9

 and is consistent with guidance published by the US SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy.10 For example, from the 2002 Census (in 2008 dollars), the average revenue for 

small governments (counties and municipalities) with populations fewer than 10,000 are $3 

million per entity, and the average revenue for local governments with populations fewer than 

50,000 is $8 million per entity. For the smallest group of local governments (<10,000 people), 

the cost-to-revenue ratio would be 0.2% or less under each case. For the larger group of 

governments (<50,000 people), the cost-to-revenue ratio is 0.1% or less under all cases. 

 

9

The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rule writers regarding the types of small business analysis that should 

be considered can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf, pp. 24-25. 10U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, May 2003. 
7-1 

SECTION 7

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

Synopsis 

Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed CI RICE NESHAP 

reconsideration is expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and have 

ancillary co-benefits that would lower ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone. In this section, 

we quantify the monetized co-benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by reducing emissions of precursors. We estimate the total 

monetized co-benefits to be $770 million to $1.9 billion at a 3% discount rate and $690 million 

to $1.7 billion at a 7% discount rate in 2013. All estimates are in 2010$. These estimates reflect 

the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality 

among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. These estimates reflect EPA’s most 

current interpretation of the scientific literature. Higher or lower estimates of benefits are 

possible using other assumptions; examples of this are provided in Figure 7-2. Data, resource, 

and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, carbon 

monoxide, and ozone, as well as visibility impairment. In addition to reducing emissions of PM 

precursors, this rule would reduce 1,000 tons of HAP and 14,000 tons of carbon monoxide each year.

7.1 Calculation of PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits 

This proposed reconsideration would reduce emissions of directly emitted particles and 

VOCs. Because these emissions are precursors to PM2.5, reducing these emissions would also 

reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Due 

to analytical limitations, it was not possible to provide a comprehensive estimate of PM2.5-related 

benefits or provide estimates of the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, or 

ozone. Instead, we used the “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate these benefits. The 

methodology employed in this analysis is similar to the work described in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009), but represents an improvement that EPA believes would provide more reliable 

estimates of PM2.5-related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. The key 

assumptions are described in detail below. These PM2.5 benefit-per-ton estimates provide the 

total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) 

of reducing one ton of PM2.5 from a specified source. EPA has used the benefit per-ton technique 

in several previous RIAs, including the recent SO2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010). 
7-2 

The Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009b) 

identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM2.5, which include premature 

morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposures. Table 7-

1 shows the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in those benefit-per-ton estimates, but 

this table does not include entries for the unquantified health effects associated with exposure to 

HAP, CO, or ozone nor welfare effects such visibility impairment that are described in section 

7.2. It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified benefit categories is not exhaustive, 

nor is quantification of each effect complete. 
7-3 

Table 7-1: Human Health Effects of PM2.5 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

(refers to 

CSAPR RIA) 

Improved Human Health 

Reduced incidence of 

premature mortality 

from exposure to PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation 

estimates (age >25 or age >30) 

  Section 5.4 

Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.4 

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.4 

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all 

ages)   Section 5.4 

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age 

>20)   Section 5.4 

Emergency room visits for asthma (all 

ages)   Section 5.4 

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)   Section 5.4 

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)   Section 5.4 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics 

age 9-11)   Section 5.4 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-

18)   Section 5.4 

Lost work days (age 18-65)   Section 5.4 

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65)   Section 5.4 

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)   Section 5.4 

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages) -- -- Section 5.4 

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 

50-79) -- -- Section 5.4 

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other 

ages) -- -- PM ISA2

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, nonbronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and 

populations) 

-- -- PM ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects 

(e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, 

etc) 

-- -- PM ISA2,3

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity 

effects -- -- PM ISA2,3

1 We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. 2

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods. 3

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other 

significant concerns over the strength of the association. 

Consistent with the Portland Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a), the benefits estimates 

utilize the concentration-response functions as reported in the epidemiology literature, as well as 

the 12 functions obtained in EPA’s expert elicitation study as a sensitivity analysis. 
7-4 

 One estimate is based on the concentration-response (C-R) function developed from 

the extended analysis of American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort, as reported in Pope 

et al. (2002), a study that EPA has previously used to generate its primary benefits 

estimate. When calculating the estimate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as 

reported in the study without an adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 

μg/m3

 as was done in recent (2006-2009) Office of Air and Radiation RIAs. 

 One estimate is based on the C-R function developed from the extended analysis of 

the Harvard Six Cities cohort, as reported by Laden et al (2006). This study, 

published after the completion of the Staff Paper for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, has 

been used as an alternative estimate in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA and PM2.5 benefits 

estimates in RIAs completed since the PM2.5 NAAQS. When calculating the 

estimate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as reported in the study without an 

adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 μg/m3

 as was done in recent 

(2006-2009) RIAs. 

 Twelve estimates are based on the C-R functions from EPA’s expert elicitation study 

(Roman et al., 2008) on the PM2.5 -mortality relationship and interpreted for benefits 

analysis in EPA’s final RIA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For that study, twelve experts 

(labeled A through L) provided independent estimates of the PM2.5 -mortality 

concentration-response function. EPA practice has been to develop independent 

estimates of PM2.5 -mortality estimates corresponding to the concentration-response 

function provided by each of the twelve experts, to better characterize the degree of 

variability in the expert responses. 

The effect coefficients are drawn from epidemiology studies examining two large 

population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Pope et al., 2002) and the Harvard Six 

Cities cohort (Laden et al., 2006).1

 These are logical choices for anchor points in our 

presentation because, while both studies are well designed and peer reviewed, there are strengths 

and weaknesses inherent in each, which we believe argues for using both studies to generate 

benefits estimates. Previously, EPA had calculated benefits based on these two empirical 

studies, but derived the range of benefits, including the minimum and maximum results, from an 

expert elicitation of the relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and premature mortality (Roman 

 

1

 These two studies specify multi-pollutant models that control for SO2, among other co-pollutants. 
7-5 

et al., 2008).2

 Within this assessment, we include the benefits estimates derived from the 

concentration-response function provided by each of the twelve experts to better characterize the 

uncertainty in the concentration-response function for mortality and the degree of variability in 

the expert responses. Because the experts used these cohort studies to inform their 

concentration-response functions, benefits estimates using these functions generally fall between 

results using these epidemiology studies (see Figure 7-2). In general, the expert elicitation 

results support the conclusion that the benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial. 

Readers interested in reviewing the general methodology for creating the benefit-per-ton 

estimates used in this analysis should consult the draft Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

estimating the benefits per ton of reducing PM2.5 and its precursors in the “Other Non-EGU 

Point” category (U.S. EPA, 2012).3

 The primary difference between the estimates used in this 

analysis and the estimates reported in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) is the air quality 

modeling data utilized. In this analysis, we apply these national benefit-per-ton estimates 

calculated for this category for directly emitted particles and multiply them by the corresponding 

emission reductions. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient 

to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Directly emitted particles are the 

primary PM2.5 precursors affected by this rule. Even though we assume that all fine particles 

have equivalent health effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending 

on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. 

The sector-specific modeling does not provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated 

with reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to 

other PM2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 2012). 

The benefit-per-ton coefficients in this analysis were derived using modified versions of 

the health impact functions used in the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (U.S. EPA, 

2006). Specifically, this analysis uses the method first applied in the Portland Cement NESHAP 

 

2

 Please see the Section 5.2 of the Portland Cement RIA in Appendix 5A for more information regarding the change 

in the presentation of benefits estimates. 3

 Stationary engines are included in the other non-EGU point source category. If the affected stationary engines are 

more rural than the average of the non-EGU sources modeled, then it is possible that the benefits may be 

somewhat less than we have estimated here. The TSD provides the geographic distribution of the air quality 

changes associated with this sector. It is important to emphasize that this modeling represents the best available 

information on the air quality impact on a per ton basis for these sources. 
7-6 

RIA (U.S. EPA, 2009a), which applied the functions directly from the epidemiology studies 

without an adjustment for an assumed threshold. Removing the threshold assumption is a key 

difference between the method used in this analysis of PM benefits and the methods used in 

RIAs prior to Portland Cement proposal, and we now calculate incremental benefits down to the 

lowest modeled PM2.5 air quality levels.4

 

Based on our review of the current body of scientific literature, EPA now estimates PMrelated mortality without applying an assumed concentration threshold. EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009b), which was reviewed by EPA’s 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009a; U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009b), 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model 

most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while 

recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function. 

Consistent with this finding, we have conformed the previous threshold sensitivity 

analysis to the current state of the PM science by incorporating a “Lowest Measured Level” 

(LML) assessment, which is a method EPA has employed in several recent RIAs including the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (U.S. EPA, 2011b). This information allows readers to determine 

the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of each 

study; in general, our confidence in the estimated PM mortality decreases as we consider air 

quality levels further below the LML in major cohort studies that estimate PM-related mortality. 

While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated 

PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PMrelated mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. It is important 

to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of 

the major cohort studies, which is 5.8 μg/m3

. Just because we have greater confidence in the 

benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we have no confidence that benefits occur 

below the LML. For a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a 

threshold in the PM2.5-mortality relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the ConcentrationResponse Function for PM2.5-related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b). 

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. However, we believe 

 

4

 Additional updates since the Cement RIA include a revised VSL and updated baseline incidence rates. 
7-7 

that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. 

As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population 

exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the 

benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one 

parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and 

change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to air pollution 

below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts 

as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, which we are 

unable to quantify for rules without rule-specific air quality modeling, is the shift in exposure 

associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML 

assessment for this rule. The results of this analysis are provided in Section 7.3. 

As is the nature of RIAs, the assumptions and methods used to estimate air quality 

benefits evolve over time to reflect the Agency’s most current interpretation of the scientific and 

economic literature. For a period of time (2004-2008), the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

valued mortality risk reductions using a value of statistical life (VSL) estimate derived from a 

limited analysis of some of the available studies. OAR arrived at a VSL using a range of $1 

million to $10 million (2000$) consistent with two meta-analyses of the wage-risk literature. 

The $1 million value represented the lower end of the interquartile range from the Mrozek and 

Taylor (2002) meta-analysis of 33 studies. The $10 million value represented the upper end of 

the interquartile range from the Viscusi and Aldy (2003) meta-analysis of 43 studies. The mean 

estimate of $5.5 million (2000$)5

 was also consistent with the mean VSL of $5.4 million 

estimated in the Kochi et al. (2006) meta-analysis. However, the Agency neither changed its 

official guidance on the use of VSL in rulemakings nor subjected the interim estimate to a 

scientific peer-review process through the Science Advisory Board (SAB) or other peer-review 

group. 

During this time, the Agency continued work to update its guidance on valuing mortality 

risk reductions, including commissioning a report from meta-analytic experts to evaluate 

methodological questions raised by EPA and the SAB on combining estimates from the various 

data sources. In addition, the Agency consulted several times with the Science Advisory Board 

Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC) on the issue. With input from the 

meta-analytic experts, the SAB-EEAC advised the Agency to update its guidance using specific, 

appropriate meta-analytic techniques to combine estimates from unique data sources and 

 

5

 After adjusting the VSL for a different currency year (2010$) and to account for income growth to 2015 of the $5.5 

million value, the VSL is $8.0 million. 
7-8 

different studies, including those using different methodologies (i.e., wage-risk and stated 

preference) (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2007). 

 

Until updated guidance is available, the Agency determined that a single, peer-reviewed 

estimate applied consistently best reflects the SAB-EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, the 

Agency has decided to apply the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000)6

 while the Agency continues its efforts to 

update its guidance on this issue. This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates 

derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 

1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$).7

 The Agency is committed to 

using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing mortality risk reductions 

and has made significant progress in responding to the SAB-EEAC’s specific recommendations. 

In implementing these rules, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM2.5 

below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some areas and assist 

other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIAs also calculate PM 

benefits, there are important differences worth noting in the design and analytical objectives of 

each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and benefits of attaining a new air 

quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission control strategies for different sources. 

In short, NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the control strategies that States may 

choose to enact when implementing a NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS does not directly result 

in costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and are not intended to 

be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result in specific costs of control and 

emission reductions. However, some costs and benefits estimated in this RIA account for the 

same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM2.5 NAAQS RIA. 

By contrast, the emission reductions for implementation rules are from a specific class of 

well-characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the magnitude and location of 

the emission reductions for implementation rules rather than illustrative NAAQS analyses. 

Emission reductions achieved under these and other promulgated rules will ultimately be 

reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs 

 

6

 In revised Economic Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2010c), EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the 

understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 

Therefore, this report does not represent final agency policy. 7

 This value is $4.8 million in 1990$. In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account for a different currency year 

($2010) and to account for income growth to 2015. After applying these adjustments to the $6.3 million value, the 

VSL is $9.2 million. 
7-9 

and benefits associated with attaining the NAAQS. EPA remains forward looking towards the 

next iteration of the 5-year review cycle for the NAAQS, and as a result does not issue updated 

RIAs for existing NAAQS that retroactively update the baseline for NAAQS implementation. 

For more information on the relationship between the NAAQS and rules such as analyzed here, 

please see Section 1.2.4 of the SO2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010a). 

 
7-10 

Figure 7.1 illustrates the relative breakdown of the monetized PM2.5 health benefits. 

Figure 7-1: Breakdown of Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits using Mortality Function 

from Pope et al. (2002)* 

*This pie chart breakdown is illustrative, using the results based on Pope et al. (2002) as an example. Using the 

Laden et al. (2006) function for premature mortality, the percentage of total monetized benefits due to adult 

mortality would be 97%. This chart shows the breakdown using a 3% discount rate, and the results would be similar 

if a 7% discount rate was used. 

 Table 7-2 provides a general summary of the monetized PM-related health benefits by 

precursor, including the emission reductions and benefit-per-ton estimates at discount rates of 

3% and 7%.8

 Table 7-3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidences as a result of 

the pollution reductions. In Table 7-4, we provide the benefits using our anchor points of Pope 

et al. and Laden et al. as well as the results from the expert elicitation on PM mortality. Figure 

7-2 provides a visual representation of the range of PM2.5-related benefits estimates using 

 

8

 To comply with Circular A-4, EPA provides monetized benefits using discount rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). 

These benefits are estimated for a specific analysis year (i.e., 2013), and most of the PM benefits occur within 

that year with two exceptions: acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) and premature mortality. For AMIs, we 

assume 5 years of follow-up medical costs and lost wages. For premature mortality, we assume that there is a 

“cessation” lag between PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although the 

structure of the lag is uncertain, EPA follows the advice of the SAB-HES to assume a segmented lag structure 

characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the first year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 

20 after the reduction in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004). Changes in the lag assumptions do not change the total 

number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those deaths. Therefore, discounting only affects the AMI 

costs after the analysis year and the valuation of premature mortalities that occur after the analysis year. As such, 

the monetized benefits using a 7% discount rate are only approximately 10% less than the monetized benefits 

using a 3% discount rate. 

Adult Mortality ‐ Pope et

al. 93%

ChronicBronchitis 4%

AMI 2%

Acute Respiratory Symptoms

0.5%

InfantMortality 0.4%

Work Loss Days 0.2%

HospitalAdmissions, Cardio

0.2% HospitalAdmissions, Resp

0.04%

Asthma Exacerbation 0.01%

Acute Bronchitis 0.01%

UpperResp Symp 0.00%

LowerResp Symp 0.00%

ERVisits, Resp 0.00%

Other1%
7-11 

concentration-response functions supplied by experts. Figure 7-3 shows a breakdown of 

monetized benefits by engine size. 

The benefit-per-ton estimates shown in this RIA are different than the benefit-per-ton 

estimates cited in the 2010 final SI RICE RIA for two reasons. First, these estimates are based 

on updated air quality modeling, which results in slightly higher benefits per ton for other nonEGU point sources than the previous modeling. Second, these estimates have been inflated to 

2010$. Third, the new air quality modeling did not provide estimates associated with reducing 

VOCs. 

Table 7-2: General Summary of Monetized PM2.5-Related Health Co-Benefits Estimates 

for the Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration (millions of 2010$)*

Pollutant 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Pope, 

3%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Laden, 

3%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Pope, 

7%) 

Benefit 

per ton 

(Laden, 

7%) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

of 2010$ at 3%) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

of 2010$ at 7%) 

PM2.5 Precursors 

Direct 

PM2.5

2,818 $270,000 $670,000 $240,000 $610,000 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

 Total $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700

*

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

across columns. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct 

exposure to NO2, ozone exposure, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have 

equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different 

propensity to form PM2.5. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient 

fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology. 

 
7-12 

Table 7-3: Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5-Related Co-Benefits 

for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration* 

Avoided Premature Mortality

Pope et al. 85 

Laden et al. 220 

Avoided Morbidity 

Chronic Bronchitis 59 

Emergency Department Visits, Respiratory 66 

Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 16 

Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 35 

Acute Bronchitis 130 

Lower Respiratory 1,700 

Upper Respiratory 1,300 

Minor Restricted Activity Days 68,000 

Work Loss Days 12,000 

Asthma Exacerbation 2,800 

Acute Myocardial Infarction 94 

* All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. All 

fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis 

because of the benefit-per-ton methodology. 
7-13 

Table 7-4: All PM2.5 Co-Benefits Estimates for the Proposed CI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration at discount rates of 3% and 7% in 2013 (in millions of 

2010$)* 

 3% 7% 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature

Pope et al. $770 $690 

Laden et al. $1,900 $1,700 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation 

Expert A $2,000 $1,800 

Expert B $1,500 $1,400 

Expert C $1,500 $1,400 

Expert D $1,100 $970 

Expert E $2,500 $2,200 

Expert F $1,400 $1,200 

Expert G $920 $820 

Expert H $1,200 $1,000 

Expert I $1,500 $1,400 

Expert J $1,200 $1,100 

Expert K $290 $260 

Expert L $1,000 $910 

*

All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. The benefits estimates from the Expert Elicitation are provided 

as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated with the concentrationresponse function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology 
7-14 

 

Figure 7-2: Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed CI RICE NESHAP 

Reconsideration in 2013 

*This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the 

Pope et al. study and the Laden et al study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert elicitation on 

PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates 

are based in part on the concentration-response function provided in those studies. 

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions(2010$)

PM2.5mortality benefits estimates derived from 2 epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions

3% DR

7% DR
7-15 

Figure 7-3: Breakdown of Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed CI RICE 

NESHAP Reconsideration by Engine Size 

7.2 Unquantified Benefits 

The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable 

to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource 

limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from 

several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, CO, and 

ozone exposure, as well as ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment. This does not imply that 

there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. These benefits are described 

qualitatively in this section. 

7.2.1 HAP Benefits 

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 

42% since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that most 

Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the potential to 

cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c).9

 The levels of air toxics to which people are 

exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they 

engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types and locations that are 

 

9 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

Major <500 HP

25%

Major >500 HP

6%

Area <600 HP

36%

Area >600 HP

33%
7-16 

of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA.10 The most recent NATA was 

conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes four steps: 

1) Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 

2) Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States 

3) Estimating population exposures across the United States 

4) Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both 

cancer and noncancer effects 

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have 

increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 

in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are 

formaldehyde and benzene.11 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other 

emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and 

background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk. 

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,12 subchronic,13 or acute14 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

 

10 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, 

this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ 11 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 12 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species). 13 Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species). 14 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less. 
7-17 

Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5 depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis, according to EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower 

than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions. 

Figure 7-4 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure 

from outdoor sources (2005 NATA) 

Deleted: Figure 

Deleted: Figure 
7-18 

Figure 7-5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA) 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were 

unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced 

as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA 

has quantified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non-cancer risk 

(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed 

through risk assessment procedures.15 These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, 

are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most 

likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely 

to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates would 

overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high-end risk estimates in past 

analyses, advice from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid 

 

15The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the 

probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3

 of 

a pollutant. 
7-19 

using high-end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2002). Since this time, EPA has 

continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP. 

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 

(U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with 

reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we did not attempt to 

monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a 

qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by 

these rules.EPA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by 

continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of 

risk. 

Although numerous HAP may be emitted from CI RICE, a few HAP account for over 90% of 

the total mass of HAP emissions emitted. These HAP are formaldehyde (72%), acetaldehyde (8%), 

acrolein (7%), methanol (3%), and benzene (3%). Although we do not have estimates of emission 

reductions for each HAP, this rule for existing CI engines is anticipated to reduce 1,000 tons of HAP 

each year. Below we describe the health effects associated with the top 5 HAP by mass emitted from 

CI RICE.
7-20 

Formaldehyde 

Since 1987, EPA has classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen based on 

evidence in humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and monkeys.16 Substantial additional research 

since that time informs current scientific understanding of the health effects associated with 

exposure to formaldehyde. These include recently published research conducted by the National 

Cancer Institute (NCI) which found an increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and 

lymphohematopoietic malignancies such as leukemia among workers exposed to 

formaldehyde.17,18 In an analysis of the lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality from an extended 

follow-up of these workers, NCI confirmed an association between lymphohematopoietic cancer 

risk and peak formaldehyde exposures.19 A recent NIOSH study of garment workers also found 

increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers exposed to formaldehyde.20 Extended 

follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers did not find evidence of an increase in 

nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing statistically significant excess 

in lung cancers was reported.21

In the past 15 years there has been substantial research on the inhalation dosimetry for 

formaldehyde in rodents and primates by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT, 

now renamed the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences), with a focus on use of rodent data for 

refinement of the quantitative cancer dose-response assessment.22,23,24 CIIT’s risk assessment of 

 

16 U.S. EPA. 1987. Assessment of Health Risks to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents from Exposure to 

Formaldehyde, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 17 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic 

malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95: 1615-

1623. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 18 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among 

workers in formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-1130. Docket EPA-HQOAR-2010-0162. 19 Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoover, R. N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. 

Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: The National 

Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751-761. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 20 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. 

Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193-200. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 21 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers 

exposed to formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 22 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2003. Biologically 

motivated computational modeling of formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. Tox Sci 75: 432-447. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 23 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2004. Human respiratory 

tract cancer risks of inhaled formaldehyde: Dose-response predictions derived from biologically-motivated 

computational modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset. Tox Sci 82: 279-296. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0162. 
7-21 

formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic and dosimetric information on formaldehyde. These data 

were modeled using a biologically-motivated two-stage clonal growth model for cancer and also 

a point of departure based on a Benchmark Dose approach. However, it should be noted that 

recent research published by EPA indicates that when two-stage modeling assumptions are 

varied, resulting dose-response estimates can vary by several orders of magnitude.25,26,27,28 These 

findings are not supportive of interpreting the CIIT model results as providing a conservative 

(health protective) estimate of human risk.29 EPA research also examined the contribution of the 

two-stage modeling for formaldehyde towards characterizing the relative weights of key events 

in the mode-of-action of a carcinogen. For example, the model-based inference in the published 

CIIT study that formaldehyde’s direct mutagenic action is not relevant to the compound’s 

tumorigenicity was found not to hold under variations of modeling assumptions.30

Based on the developments of the last decade, in 2004, the working group of the IARC 

concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), on the basis of sufficient 

evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals - a higher classification than 

previous IARC evaluations. After reviewing the currently available epidemiological evidence, 

the IARC (2006) characterized the human evidence for formaldehyde carcinogenicity as 

“sufficient,” based upon the data on nasopharyngeal cancers; the epidemiologic evidence on 

leukemia was characterized as “strong.”31

Formaldehyde exposure also causes a range of noncancer health effects, including 

irritation of the eyes (burning and watering of the eyes), nose and throat. Effects from repeated 

 

24 Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT).1999. Formaldehyde: Hazard characterization and dose-response 

assessment for carcinogenicity by the route of inhalation. CIIT, September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, 

NC. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 25 U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-Stage Clonal Growth Models for Formaldehyde with 

Relevance to Other Biologically-Based Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/103, 2008. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 26 Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; .et .al. (2008) Uncertainties in biologically-based modeling of 

formaldehyde-induced cancer risk: identification of key issues. Risk Anal 28(4):907-923. Docket EPA-HQOAR-2010-0162. 27 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; et. al. (2007) Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 

formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 28 Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; .et .al. (2008) Sensitivity analysis of biologically motivated model for formaldehydeinduced respiratory cancer in humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 29 Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; .et .al. (2008) Sensitivity analysis of biologically motivated model for formaldehydeinduced respiratory cancer in humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 30 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; et. al. (2007) Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 

formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 31 International Agency for Research on Cancer (2006) Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-

ol. Monographs Volume 88. World Health Organization, Lyon, France. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 
7-22 

exposure in humans include respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal epithelial 

lesions such as metaplasia and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest that formaldehyde may also 

cause airway inflammation – including eosinophil infiltration into the airways. There are several 

studies that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the risk of asthma – particularly in the 

young.32,33

 The above-mentioned rodent and human studies, as well as mechanistic information and 

their analyses, were evaluated in EPA’s recent Draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde – 

Inhalation Assessment through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. This 

draft IRIS assessment was released in June 2010 for public review and comment and external 

peer review by the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC released their review report in 

April 2011 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142). The EPA is currently revising 

the draft assessment in response to this review. 

Acetaldehyde 

Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a probable human carcinogen, based 

on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.34 

Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) in the 11th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as 

possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the IARC.35,36 The primary noncancer effects of 

exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.37 

 

32 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for Formaldehyde. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 33 WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 40: Formaldehyde. Published under the joint 

sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization, and the 

World Health Organization, and produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the 

Sound Management of Chemicals. Geneva. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of 

Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. 36 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1999. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, 

and hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans, 

Vol 71. Lyon, France. 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of 

Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 
7-23 

Acrolein 

 EPA determined in 2003 that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be 

determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the 

carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of 

carcinogenicity.38 The IARC determined in 1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its 

carcinogenicity in humans.39

Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure 

resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense 

irritancy of this carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who 

suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory reactions within minutes of exposure.40 These 

data and additional studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are 

summarized in EPA’s 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for acrolein.41 Evidence available 

from studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m3

) for five minutes 

may elicit subjective complaints of eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more 

extensive eye, nose and respiratory symptoms.42 Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract 

of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein.43 Acute 

exposure effects in animal studies report bronchial hyper-responsiveness.44 In a recent study, the 

acute respiratory irritant effects of exposure to 1.1 ppm acrolein were more pronounced in mice 

with allergic airway disease by comparison to non-diseased mice which also showed decreases in 

 

38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 39 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 63, Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other industrial chemicals, World 

Health Organization, Lyon, France. 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

2003. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 

EPA/635/R-03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. p. 11. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R03/003. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf. 
7-24 

respiratory rate.45 Based on these animal data and demonstration of similar effects in humans 

(i.e., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals with compromised respiratory function (e.g., 

emphysema, asthma) are expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to 

strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. 

Benzene 

The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) 

by all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, 

including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow 

cells in mice.46,47,48 EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal relationship between 

benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene 

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The IARC 

has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the DHHS has characterized benzene as a 

known human carcinogen.49,50 A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood 

disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term 

exposure to benzene.51,52 

 

45 Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. 2003. Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to 

irritants in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1563-1571. 46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 47 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982. 48 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite 

hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, 

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:3691-3695. 49 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk 

of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. 51 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. 52 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
7-25 

Methanol 

Exposure of humans to methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in central nervous 

system depression and degenerative changes in the brain and visual systems. After inhaled or 

ingested, methanol is converted to formate, a highly toxic metabolite that within the course of a 

few hours can cause narcosis, metabolic acidosis, headaches, severe abdominal and leg pain and 

visual degeneration that can lead to blindness.53

Methanol has been demonstrated to cause developmental toxicity in rats and mice, and 

reproductive and developmental toxicity in monkeys. A number of studies have reported adverse 

effects in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to methanol by inhalation including reduced 

weight of brain pituitary gland, thymus, thyroid, reduced overall fetal body weight and increased 

incidence of extra ribs and cleft palate.54,55,56 Methanol inhalation studies using rhesus monkeys 

have reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy, and limited evidence of impaired learning 

ability in offspring.57,58,59,60 EPA has not classified methanol with respect to its carcinogenicity. 

Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds described above, other toxic compounds might be affected 

by these rules. Information regarding the health effects of those compounds can be found in 

EPA’s IRIS database.61

 

53 Rowe, VK and McCollister, SB. 1981. Alcohols. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 3rd ed. Vol. 2C, 

GD Clayton, FE Clayton, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 4528-4541. 54 New Energy Development Organization (NEDO). 1987. Toxicological research of methanol as a fuel for power 

station: summary report on tests with monkeys, rats and mice. Tokyo, Japan. 55 Nelson, BK; Brightwell, WS; MacKenzie, DR; Khan, A; Burg, JR; Weigel, WW; Goad, PT. 1985. Teratological 

assessment of methanol and ethanol at high inhalation levels in rats. Toxicol Sci, 5: 727-736. 56 Rogers, JM; Barbee, BD; Rehnberg, BF. 1993. Critical periods of sensitivity for the developmental toxicity of 

inhaled methanol. Teratology, 47: 395. 57 Burbacher, T; Grant, K; Shen, D; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 1999. Reproductive and offspring 

developmental effects following maternal inhalation exposure to methanol in nonhuman primates Part II: 

developmental effects in infants exposed prenatally to methanol. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA. 58 Burbacher, T; Shen, D; Grant, K; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 1999. Reproductive and offspring 

developmental effects following maternal inhalation exposure to methanol in nonhuman primates Part I: 

methanol disposition and reproductive toxicity in adult females. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA. 59 Burbacher, TM; Grant, KS; Shen, DD; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 2004. Chronic maternal 

methanol inhalation in nonhuman primates (Macaca fascicularis): reproductive performance and birth outcome. 

Neurotoxicol Teratol, 26: 639-650. 60 Burbacher, TM; Shen, DD; Lalovic, B; Grant, KS; Sheppard, L; Damian, D; Ellis, S; Liberato, N. 2004. Chronic 

maternal methanol inhalation in nonhuman primates (Macaca fascicularis): exposure and toxicokinetics prior to 

and during pregnancy. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 26: 201-221. 61 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 
7-26 

7.2.2 Ozone Co-Benefits 

In the presence of sunlight, NOx and VOCs can undergo a chemical reaction in the 

atmosphere to form ozone. Reducing ambient ozone concentrations is associated with 

significant human health benefits, including mortality and respiratory morbidity (U.S. EPA, 

2008a). Epidemiological researchers have associated ozone exposure with adverse health effects 

in numerous toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2006c). These health 

effects include respiratory morbidity such as fewer asthma attacks, hospital and ER visits, school 

loss days, as well as premature mortality. 

7.2.3 Carbon Monoxide Co-Benefits 

Carbon monoxide in ambient air is formed primarily by the incomplete combustion of 

carbon-containing fuels and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. The amount of CO emitted 

from these reactions, relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), is sensitive to conditions in the combustion 

zone, such as fuel oxygen content, burn temperature, or mixing time. Upon inhalation, CO diffuses 

through the respiratory system to the blood, which can cause hypoxia (reduced oxygen availability). 

Carbon monoxide can elicit a broad range of effects in multiple tissues and organ systems that are 

dependent upon concentration and duration of exposure. The Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide (U.S. EPA, 2010a) concluded that short-term exposure to CO is “likely to have a 

causal relationship” with cardiovascular morbidity, particularly in individuals with coronary heart 

disease. Epidemiologic studies associate short-term CO exposure with increased risk of emergency 

department visits and hospital admissions. Coronary heart disease includes those who have angina 

pectoris (cardiac chest pain), as well as those who have experienced a heart attack. Other 

subpopulations potentially at risk include individuals with diseases such as chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease (COPD), anemia, or diabetes, and individuals in very early or late life stages, such 

as older adults or the developing young. The evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between 

short-term exposure to CO and respiratory morbidity and mortality. The evidence is also suggestive 

of a causal relationship for birth outcomes and developmental effects following long-term exposure 

to CO, and for central nervous system effects linked to short- and long-term exposure to CO.

7.2.4 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits 

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 would improve visibility throughout the U.S. 

Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Suspended particles and gases degrade 

visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Higher visibility impairment levels in the East are 

due to generally higher concentrations of fine particles, particularly sulfates, and higher average 
7-27 

relative humidity levels. Visibility has direct significance to people’s enjoyment of daily 

activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where 

individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. Previous analyses 

(U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2011a; U.S. EPA, 2011b) show that visibility benefits are a 

significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate 

visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether VOC emission reductions would 

be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 

7.3 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized Co-Benefits 

In any complex analysis, there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. Many inputs 

are used to derive the final estimate of economic benefits, including emission inventories, air 

quality models (with their associated parameters and inputs), epidemiological estimates of 

concentration-response (C-R) functions, estimates of values, population estimates, income 

estimates, and estimates of the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human 

behavior). For some parameters or inputs it may be possible to provide a statistical 

representation of the underlying uncertainty distribution. For other parameters or inputs, the 

necessary information is not available. As discussed in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA (Table 5.5) (U.S. 

EPA, 2006), there are a variety of uncertainties associated with these PM benefits. Therefore, 

the estimates of annual benefits should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits 

expected, rather than the actual benefits that would occur every year. 

It is important to note that the monetized benefit-per-ton estimates used here reflect 

specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits 

modeling assumptions. For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population 

density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors. Use of 

these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if 

benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in 

applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are 

all based on national or broad regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent 

average benefits-per-ton over the entire United States. The benefits-per-ton for emission 

reductions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here. For more 

information, see the TSD describing the calculation of the new benefit-per-ton estimates (U.S. 

EPA, 2012). 
7-28 

PM2.5 mortality benefits are the largest benefit category that we monetized in this 

analysis. To better characterize the uncertainty associated with mortality impacts that are 

estimated to occur in areas with low baseline levels of PM2.5, we included the LML assessment. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations, thus we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with 

this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality 

impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the 

source apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. A 

very large proportion of the population is exposed at or above the lowest LML of the cohort 

studies (Figures 7-6 and 7-7), increasing our confidence in the PM mortality analysis. Figure 7-6 

shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air quality levels in the 

pre- and post-policy policy. Figure 7-7 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same 

data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. As the policy shifts 

the distribution of air quality levels, fewer people are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the 

LML. Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, the 77% of the population is exposed to annual mean 

PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m3

. Using the Laden et al. (2006) study, 25% of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

.

 As we model avoided premature deaths 

among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we have lower confidence in levels below the 

LML for each study. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related 

effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. Just because we have greater 

confidence in the benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we have no confidence that 

benefits occur below the LML. 

A large fraction of the baseline exposure occurs below the level of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for annual PM2.5 at 15 μg/m3

, which wasset in 2006. It is 

important to emphasize that NAAQS are not set at a level of zero risk. Instead, the NAAQS 

reflect the level determined by the Administrator to be protective of public health within an 

adequate margin of safety, taking into consideration effects on susceptible populations. While 

benefits occurring below the standard may be less certain than those occurring above the 

standard, EPA considers them to be legitimate components of the total benefits estimate. 
7-29 

Figure 7-6. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline 

 
7-30 

Figure 7-7. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 

Exposure in the Baseline 

Above we present the estimates of the total benefits, based on our interpretation of the 

best available scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB-HES and the NAS 

(NRC, 2002). The benefits estimates are subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties. 

For example, for key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality, which 

typically account for more than 90% of the total benefits, we were able to quantify include the 

following: 

1. PM2.5 benefits were derived through benefit per-ton estimates, which do not reflect 

local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health 

incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over-estimate or underestimate of the actual benefits of controlling directly emitted fine particulates. We do 

not have data on the specific location of the air quality changes associated with this 

rulemaking; as such, it is not feasible to estimate the proportion of benefits occurring 

in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. In addition, the 

benefit-per-ton estimates are based on emissions from existing sources. To the extent 
7-31 

that the geographic distribution of the emissions reductions for this rule are different 

than the modeled emissions, the benefits may be underestimated or overestimated. In 

general, there is inherently more uncertainty for new sources, which may not be 

included in the emissions inventory, than existing sources. 

2. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, 

because PM2.5 produced via transported precursors emitted from EGUs may differ 

significantly from direct PM2.5 released from diesel engines and other industrial 

sources, but no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects 

estimates by particle type. 

3. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear down to the 

lowest air quality levels modeled in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health 

benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5,

including both regions that are in attainment with fine particle standard and those that 

do not meet the standard down to the lowest modeled concentrations. 

4. To characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality (which typically accounts for 85% to 95% of total monetized benefits), we 

include a set of twelve estimates based on results of the expert elicitation study in 

addition to our core estimates. Even these multiple characterizations omit the 

uncertainty in air quality estimates, baseline incidence rates, populations exposed and 

transferability of the effect estimate to diverse locations. As a result, the reported 

confidence intervals and range of estimates give an incomplete picture about the 

overall uncertainty in the PM2.5 estimates. This information should be interpreted 

within the context of the larger uncertainty surrounding the entire analysis. For more 

information on the uncertainties associated with PM2.5 benefits, please consult the 

PM2.5 NAAQS RIA (Table 5.5). 

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM 

NAAQS RIA because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the 

benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for this rule. 

Moreover, it was not possible to develop benefit-per-ton metrics and associated estimates of 

uncertainty using the benefits estimates from the PM RIA because of the significant differences 

between the sources affected in that rule and those regulated here. However, the results of the 

Monte Carlo analyses of the health and welfare benefits presented in Chapter 5 of the PM RIA 

can provide some evidence of the uncertainty surrounding the benefits results presented in this 

analysis. 
7-32 

7.4 Comparison of Co-Benefits and Costs 

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total combined monetized co-benefits of the 

reconsidered CI RICE NESHAP proposal to be $770 million to $1.9 billion in the 

implementation year (2013). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized cobenefits of the reconsidered CI RICE NESHAP proposal to be $690 million to $1.7 billion. The 

annualized social costs of the proposed NESHAP are $373 million (2010$) at a 7% interest 

rate.62 The annualized social costs of the proposed NESHAP are $372 million in 2008$. Thus, 

the net benefits are $400 million to $1.5 billion at a 3% discount rate and $320 million to $1.3 

billion at a 7% discount rate. All estimates are in 2010$ for the year 2013. 

Table 7-5 shows a summary of the monetized co-benefits, social costs, and net benefits 

for the CI RICE NESHAP, respectively. Figures 7-8 and 7-9 show the full range of net benefits 

estimates (i.e., annual co-benefits minus annualized costs) utilizing the 14 different PM2.5 

mortality functions at discount rates of 3% and 7%. In addition, the benefits from reducing 

109,000 tons of carbon monoxide and 6,000 tons of HAP each year from existing SI RICE have 

not been included in these estimates. EPA believes that the co-benefits are likely to exceed the 

costs under this rulemaking even when taking into account uncertainties in the cost and benefit 

estimates. 

Table 7-5. Summary of the Annualized Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net 

Benefits for the Proposed Reconsidered CI RICE NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010$)1

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Final Major Source NESHAP 

Total Monetized Benefits2 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance Costs3 $373 $373 

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

Non-monetized Benefits 

Health effects from HAP exposure 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC emissions 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

1

All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures. The annual ized 

compliance costs are $372 million in 2008$ as noted earlier in this RIA. Compliance costs are used as an 

approximation for social costs in this RIA. 

 

62 For more information on the annualized social costs, please refer to Section 5 of this RIA. 
7-33 

2

 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors such as directly emitted fine particles. Human health benefits are shown as a range 

from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated 

using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components here. 

See Figure 7-1 for an illustration of the breakdown, or the RIA for the final Cross-States Air Pollution Rule (EPA, 

2011) for more information. 

3 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate. 

 
7-34 

Figure 7-8. Net Benefits for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration at 3% 

discount rate* 

*Net Benefits are quantified in terms of PM2.5 at a 3% discount rate for 2013 and are in 2010$. This graph shows 14 

benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, 

but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become 

PM2.5. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. 

‐$100

‐$80

‐$60

‐$40

‐$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions (2010$)

Cost estimate combined with total monetized benefits estimates derived from 2

epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions

‐$500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions (2010$)

Costestimate combinedwith total monetized benefits estimates derived from2epidemiology functions and 12 expert

functions
7-35 

Figure 7-9. Net Benefits for Proposed CI RICE NESHAP Reconsideration at 7% 

discount rate* 

*Net Benefits are quantified in terms of PM2.5 benefits at a 7% discount rate at a 7% discount rate for 2013 and are 

in 2010$. This graph shows 14 benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. All fine particles are assumed to 

have equivalent health effects. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to 

ambient fine particles. 

‐$500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Pope et al.

Laden et al.

Millions (2010$)

Costestimate combinedwith total monetized benefits estimates derived from2epidemiology functions and 12 expert

functions
7-36 

7.5 References 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air Qual 

Atmos Health 2:169–176. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. Jan; 119(1): p. 125-30. 

Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. “An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining 

Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis.” 

Environmental and Resource Economics. 34: 385-406. 

Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow-up and 

spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and 

mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 

667-672. 

Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. 2002. “What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis.” 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(2):253-270. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of 

Energy Production and Use. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html. 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 

2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 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. 
7-37 

Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of 

the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA Report, 

ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado State University. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2007. SAB 

Advisory on EPA’s Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. October. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$File/

sab-08-001.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009a. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/73

ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope 

and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-009. 

May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/72

3FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA-COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/72D4EFA39E48CDB28525774500738776/$F

ile/EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2002. 

Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an 

EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-

001. July. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>. 
7-38 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. December. 

Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. April. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available at 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: 

Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response 

Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available on the 

Internet at <www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf>. 
7-39 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. June. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Technical Support Document: 

Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from Other Point Sources. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February. 

Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of 

Market Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1):5-76. 
8-1 

SECTION 8

REFERENCES FOR RIA 

American Hospital Association. 2010. “AHA Hospital Statistics: 2010 Edition.” Health Forum. 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, and B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health, 2:169-176. 

Fullerton, D., and G. Metcalf. 2002. “Tax Incidence.” In A. Auerbach and M. Feldstein, eds., 

Handbook of Public Economics, Vol.4, Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

Industrial Economics, Inc., 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Concentration-Response Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. 

Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_report.pdf>. 

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission. 2007. “Marginal Wells: Fuel for Economic Growth.” 

Table 3.B. <http://iogcc.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/2007-marginalwell-report-2007>. 

Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining 

Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis. 

Environmental and Resource Economics, 34:385-406. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 

173:667-672. 

Lincoln Electric Holdings. 2006. Form 10-K. Filed February 24, 2006. 

Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. 2002. “What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis.” 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(2):253-270. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits 

of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

Nelson, B., EC/R Inc. February 7, 2010. Memorandum to Melanie King, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE. 

Nicholson, Walter. 1998. Microeconomic Theory. Orlando: The Dryden Press. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the internet at 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html>. 
8-2 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, 

K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution. ” Journal of the American Medical Association, 

287:1132-1141. 

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 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. 

The Federal Reserve Board. “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Industrial 

Production” Series ID: G17/IP_MINING_AND_UTILITY_DETAIL/IP.G2211.S 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/>. (December 15, 2008) 

Troy, Leo. 2008. “Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios: 2009 Edition.” CCH. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2002. 2002 and 1997 Benchmark Input-Output 

Accounts: Detailed Make Table, Use Table and Direct Requirements Table. Tables 4 and 

5. <http://www.bea.gov/industry/index.htm#benchmark_io>. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product. Last revised December 22, 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2002; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; 

“Sector 21: Mining: Industry Series: 2002 and 1997.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; 

(November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2002; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; 

“Sector 22: Utilities: 2002.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2002; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; 

“Sector 62: Health Care and Social Assistance: Geographic Area Series: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002a. “Industry Series.” Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas: 2002. EC02-

21I-211111 (RV). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002b. “Industry Series.” Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution: 2002. EC02-22I-03. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002c. “Industry Series.” Hospitals: 2002. EC02-62I-02. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002d. “Industry Series.” Natural Gas Liquid Extraction: 2002. EC02-21I211112. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002e. “Industry Series.” Pipeline Transportation: 2002. EC02-48I-02. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1. 
8-3 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses: U.S. Detail 

Employment Sizes: 2007. < http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/download_susb07.htm>. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, U.S. All 

Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2007. < 

http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/download_susb07.htm>. 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 21: 

Mining: Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2002 and 2007.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 21, 2012). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: 

Utilities: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by Largest Firms for the 

United States: 2002.” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 22: 

Utilities: Geographic Area Series: Summary Statistics: 2002 and 2007.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 21, 2012). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 62: 

Health Care and Social Assistance: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of 

Organization for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 21, 

2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 31: 

Manufacturing: Industry Series: Historical Statistics for the Industry: 2007 and Earlier 

Years” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 23, 2012). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Industry Series: Comparative Statistics for the United 

States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 2007” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (February 

23, 2012). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Concentration by 

Largest Firms for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 

2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Geographic Distribution—Pipeline transportation of natural gas: 2002.” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (November 10, 2008). 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 48-49: 

Transportation and Warehousing: Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of 

Organization for the United States: 2002” <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 12, 

2008). 
8-4 

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; “Sector 00: All 

sectors: Geographic Area Series: Economy-Wide Key Statistics: 2007” 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (Februray 23, 2012). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2004. 

“2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2009. 

“2008 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.” Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. “Agricultural Projections to 2017.” 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE081/OCE20081c.pdf>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. “Agricultural Projections to 2017.” 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE081/OCE20081c.pdf>. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. “2006 EIA-906/920 

Monthly Time Series.” 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2008a. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ 

restructuring/restructure_elect.html>. Last updated September 2008. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010. Table 2. Available at: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet at < 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). May 2004. Final Regulatory Analysis: 

Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-04-007. Washington, 

DC: EPA. < http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. 

Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--

Benefits.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses: External Review Draft. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office 

of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the 

Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0516-

01.pdf/$File/EE-0516-01.pdf>. 
8-5 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. 

Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Technical Support Document: 

Calculating Benefit Per-Ton estimates, Ozone NAAQS Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0225-0284. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (External Review Draft). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201805>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. April. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Proposed SO2 NAAQS Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. November. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/pso2full11-16-09.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2007. SAB 

Advisory on EPA’s Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. 

October. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$F

ile/sab-08-001.pdf >. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009a. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet 

at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-

unsigned.pdf>. 
8-6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 

Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-

009. May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>. 

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2008. “Table of Small Business Size Standards 

Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.” Effective August 22, 

2008. <http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ 

tablepdf.pdf>. 

Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market 

Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27(1):5-76. 

Wade, S.H. 2003. “Price Responsiveness in the AEO2003 NEMS Residential and Commercial 

Buildings Sector Models.” 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/elasticity/pdf/buildings.pdf>. 
8-7 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division 

Research Triangle Park, NC 
Page 5-14: [1] Deleted Author 

Morgenstern 

et al. (2002) examined how regulated industries respond to regulation. The authors found that, 

on average for the industries they studied, employment increases in regulated firms. Of course, 

these firms may also reassign existing employees to perform these activities. 

Page 5-14: [2] Deleted Author 

. We do not estimate any potential 

changes in labor outside of the affected sector. It is important to highlight that unlike the typical 

case where to reduce a bad output (i.e., emissions) a firm often has to reduce production of the 

good output, many of the emission controls required by the proposed rule will simultaneously 

increase production of the good output and reduce production of bad outputs. That is, these 

controls jointly produce environmental improvements and increase output in the regulated sector. 

New labor associated with implementing these controls to comply with the new regulations can 

also be viewed as additional labor increasing output while reducing undesirable emissions. 
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Date: 05/11/2012 05:45PM 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: RE: RICE preamble 

(See attached file: EO_12866_RICE_NESHAP_Reconsideration_Proposal_2060-AQ58_4-10-

12_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563onPipelines.docx)

Hi Melanie,

Attached is a redline of the initial preamble submission with suggested edits on the pipeline issue. 

Thanks,

Cortney

From: Melanie King [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 3:31 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland; Michael Horowitz; Larry Sorrels; Amy Lamson; Paul Balserak; Fred Talcott 

Subject: RICE preamble

Hi Cortney, 

We have made edits to the preamble to address interagency comments to date, please see attached. 

There is one issue that we are still waiting on some feedback on from our management, which is the 

timing issue for the San Joaquin Valley Tier 1/2 engines, so please consider that still open for now. We 

will be sending revised RIAs separately later this afternoon. 

(See attached file: RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Proposal 2060-AQ58 5-11-12 redline.docx) 

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov

=
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE; NSPS For Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines 2060-AQ58 Proposal 20120410 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-XXXX-Y] 

RIN 2060-AQ58 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. The proposed amendments include alternative 

testing options for certain large spark ignition (generally 

natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark 

ignition stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines in 

sparsely populated areas and alternative monitoring and 

compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The 
Page 2 of 197 

EPA is also proposing to include a limited temporary allowance 

for existing stationary emergency area source engines to be used 

for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response. In addition, 

the EPA is proposing to increase the hours that stationary 

emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The 

proposed amendments also correct minor mistakes in the preexisting regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

DATE 45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 30 

days after date of public meeting if later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 

public meeting by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public meeting will be held on 

[INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If you are interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify 

that a meeting will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, by one of the following methods: 

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

 Fax: (202) 566-1741. 

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Page 3 of 197 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please 

include a total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

 Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going 
Page 4 of 197 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is held, it will be held at 

the EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC or an alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies on documents in 

Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0030, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, and incorporated 

those dockets into the record for this action. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in 
Page 5 of 197 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy 

Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-

01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile 

number (919) 541-5450; email address king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 

the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions 

G. Compliance Date 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 
Page 6 of 197 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts? 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This proposal was developed to address certain issues that have 

been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, several 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments 

and other communications. This proposal also provides 

clarifications and corrects minor mistakes in the current RICE 

NESHAP and revises the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
Page 7 of 197 

for stationary engines, 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

for consistency with the RICE NESHAP. 

This action is conducted under the authority of section 112 

of the CAA, “Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (HAP) which requires the 

EPA to establish NESHAP for the control of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing sources in regulated 

source categories. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments, the 

EPA received several petitions for reconsideration, legal 

challenges, and other communications raising issues of practical 

implementability, and certain factual information that had not 

been brought to the EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The 

EPA has considered this information and believes that amendments 

to the rule to address certain of these issues are appropriate. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, NESHAP for Stationary RICE. The current regulation applies 

to owners and operators of existing and new stationary RICE at 

major and area sources of HAP emissions. The applicability of 

the rule remains the same and is not changed by this proposal. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

engines to conform with certain of the amendments proposed for 

the NESHAP. 
Page 8 of 197 

The EPA proposes to add an alternative compliance 

demonstration option for stationary 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB) 

spark ignition (SI) engines subject to a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction. Owners and operators of 4SRB engines 

would be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the 76 percent 

formaldehyde reduction emission standard by testing total 

hydrocarbon (THC) emissions and showing that the engine is 

achieving at least a 30 percent reduction of THC emissions. The 

alternative compliance option would provide a less expensive and 

less complex, but equally effective, method for demonstrating 

compliance than testing for formaldehyde. 

Certain stationary RICE are maintained in order to be able 

to respond to emergency power needs. The EPA proposes to allow 

owners and operators of such stationary emergency RICE to 

operate their engines as part of an emergency demand response 

program within the 100 hours per year that is already permitted 

for maintenance and testing of the engines. The 100 hours per 

year allowance would ensure that a sufficient number of hours 

are permitted for engines to meet independent system operator 

(ISO) and regional transmission organization (RTO) tariffs and 

other requirements for participating in various emergency demand 

response programs and would assist in stabilizing the grid, 

preventing electrical blackouts and supporting local electric 

system reliability. A temporary limited allowance that will 
Page 9 of 197 

expire on April 16, 2017, is being proposed for stationary 

emergency engines located at area sources of HAP emissions to be 

used for up to 50 hours per year for any non-emergency purpose, 

including peak shaving. The 50 hours is part of the 100 hours 

per year total allowance for all types of emergency engine 

operation (except during emergencies where no other power is 

available, which is not restricted by the rule). The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources time to address 

reliability issues and develop solutions to reliability issues 

while facilities are coming into compliance with the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and 

Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, which were 

promulgated on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). 

 The EPA proposes management practices for owners and 

operators of existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 500 

horsepower (HP) that are area sources of HAP emissions and where 

the engines are remote from human activity. A remote area is 

defined as either a Department of Transportation (DOT) Class 1 

pipeline location1

, or, if the facility is not on a pipeline, if 

within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility there are 5 or less 

 

1 DOT’s definition of a Class 1 location applies to remote areas 

along natural gas pipelines (49 C.F.R. § 192.5). For purposes 

of this proposed rule, a Class 1 location is defined as an 

offshore area or any class location unit along a natural gas or 

a hazardous liquid pipeline that has 10 or fewer buildings 

intended for human occupancy. 

Deleted: A
Page 10 of 197 

buildings intended for human occupancy. The EPA proposes that 

these sources be subject to management practices rather than 

aftertreatment-forcing standards and associated testing and 

monitoring. This would address reasonable concerns with 

accessibility, infrastructure, and staffing that stem from the 

remoteness of the engines and higher costs that would be 

associated with compliance with the existing requirements. The 

EPA proposes that existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 

500 HP at area sources that are in populated areas (defined as 

DOT pipeline Class 2 through Class 4 areas, or if not on a 

pipeline, if within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility there are 

more than 5 buildings intended for human occupancy) be subject 

to an equipment standard that requires the installation of HAPreducing aftertreatment. Sources would be required to test their 

engines to demonstrate compliance initially, perform catalyst 

activity check-ups, and either monitor the catalyst inlet 

temperature continuously or employ high temperature shutdown 

devices to protect the catalyst. 

To address how certain existing compression ignition (CI) 

engines are currently regulated, the EPA proposes to specify 

that any existing certified CI engine above 300 HP at an area 

source of HAP emissions that was certified to meet the Tier 3 

engine standards and was installed before June 12, 2006, is in 

compliance with the NESHAP. This provision would create 
Page 11 of 197 

regulatory consistency between the same engines installed before 

and after June 12, 2006. 

The EPA is proposing amendments to the requirements for 

existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject to state and locally 

enforceable requirements requiring replacement of the engine by 

January 1, 2018. This is meant to deal with a specific concern 

regarding the interaction of the NESHAP with certain rules for 

agricultural engines in the San Joaquin Valley in California. 

The EPA is proposing to allow these engines to meet management 

practices under the RICE NESHAP for a period of 2 years until 

May 3, 2015. This provision would deal with the issue of owners 

and operators having to install controls on their engines in 

order to meet the RICE NESHAP, and then having to replace their 

engines shortly thereafter due to state and local rules 

specifying the replacement of engines. Owners and operators will 

have two additional years to replace their engines without 

having to install controls, but will be required to use 

management practices during that period. 

The last major change the EPA proposes to make is to 

broaden the definition of remote area sources of Alaska in the 

RICE NESHAP. Currently, remote areas are those that are not on 

the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). This change would permit 

existing stationary CI engines at other remote area sources in 
Page 12 of 197 

Alaska to meet management practices as opposed to emission 

standards likely necessitating aftertreatment. These remote 

areas have the same challenges as areas not on the FAHS, and 

complying with the current rule would similarly be prohibitively 

costly and potentially infeasible. In addition to area sources 

located in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS 

being defined as remote and subject to management practices, the 

EPA also proposes that any stationary RICE in Alaska meeting all 

of the following conditions be subject to management practices: 

 (1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid, and 

(2) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes, and 

(3) The generating capacity of the area source is less than 

12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 hrs 

per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

 These proposed amendments would reduce the capital and 

annual costs of the original 2010 amendments by $287 million and 
Page 13 of 197 

$139 million, respectively. The EPA estimates that with the 

proposed amendments, the capital cost of the rule is $840 

million and the annual cost is $490 million ($2010). 

These proposed amendments would also result in decreases to 

the reductions estimated in 2013 from the original 2010 RICE 

NESHAP amendments. The estimated reductions in 2013 from the 

2010 RICE NESHAP rulemaking with these proposed amendments are 

2,800 tons per year (tpy) of HAP, 36,000 tpy of carbon monoxide 

(CO), 2,800 tpy of particulate matter (PM), 9,600 tpy of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx), and 36,000 tpy of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). 

The EPA estimates the monetized co-benefits in 2013 of the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments with these proposed 

amendments incorporated to be $830 million to $2,100 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $740 million to 

$1,800 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. 

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry 

using a 

stationary 

internal 

combustion engine 

as defined in the 

2211 Electric power generation, 

transmission, or distribution. 

622110 Medical and surgical hospitals. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 
Page 14 of 197 

proposed 

amendments. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas 

production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 

a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by 

this action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of 

this proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 

through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all 

of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 

in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 
Page 15 of 197 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. 

Melanie King, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

 (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 

identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date 

and page number). 

 (b) Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to 

specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

 (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your requested changes. 

 (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used. 

 (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 

you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for 

it to be reproduced. 

 (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, 

and suggest alternatives. 

 (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 

use of profanity or personal threats. 
Page 16 of 197 

 (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 Website (TTN 

Web). Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of this 

proposed rule on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

 This action proposes amendments to the NESHAP for RICE in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. This action also proposes 

amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ. The NESHAP for stationary RICE to 

regulate emissions of HAP was developed in several stages. The 

EPA initially addressed stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources of HAP emissions in 2004 (69 FR 33473). 

The EPA addressed new stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources and new stationary RICE located at 

area sources in 2008 (73 FR 3568). Most recently, requirements 

for existing stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 
Page 17 of 197 

located at major sources and existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources were finalized in 2010 (75 FR 9648 and 75 FR 

51570). 

 The EPA is proposing to address a number of issues that 

have been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, 

several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments, and other communications. The EPA is also proposing 

to revise 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP and to make minor corrections and 

clarifications. The following sections present the issues that 

the EPA is addressing in this action, background information as 

to why these issues are causing concern among affected 

stakeholders, and how the EPA proposes to resolve the issues. 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option

1. Background 

 Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 

HP located at major sources and existing SI 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at area sources have the 

option of meeting either a formaldehyde percent reduction or a 

formaldehyde concentration standard. Formaldehyde was 

established in the original 2004 RICE NESHAP as an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB engines based on industry 

test data available at that time. Based on testing of stationary 

lean burn engines conducted at Colorado State University (CSU), 
Page 18 of 197 

the EPA was able to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP for lean 

burn engines. Rich burn engines were not tested at CSU and the 

data the EPA had available at the time that were used to set the 

standards for rich burn engines did not support the same 

relationship between CO and HAP reductions for rich burn 

engines. Therefore, the EPA was unable to establish CO as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions for rich burn engines and the 

emission standard for rich burn engines was specified in terms 

of formaldehyde, the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the 

largest quantity from stationary engines. 

 The EPA has previously acknowledged that it is 

significantly more expensive and difficult to test for 

formaldehyde than for CO, but has been unable in the past to 

support including the same flexibility for rich burn engines as 

is currently in the rule for lean burn engines with the option 

to meet the standards in terms of either formaldehyde or CO. For 

these reasons and expecting that new data for rich burn engines 

may become available in the future for the EPA to review and 

reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the EPA requested comment 

on this issue when proposing NESHAP for stationary existing 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources and all 

stationary existing engines at area sources in 2009 (74 FR 

9698). Specifically, the EPA solicited comment on whether it 

would be appropriate to include an alternative standard in terms 
Page 19 of 197 

of VOC and asked that commenters submit data supporting the 

relationship between HAP and VOC. Comments the EPA received back 

on the proposed rule asked that the formaldehyde standards for 

rich burn engines be replaced with emission standards for THC. 

The EPA determined at the time that it was not appropriate to 

adopt an alternative standard in terms of THC (or VOC) for rich 

burn engines and discussed the reasons why in the 2010 responses 

to comments.2

 Compliance with the formaldehyde standard in the 

rule is, therefore, currently demonstrated by initial and 

continuous performance testing for formaldehyde. 

 On October 19, 2010, engine manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted a petition for reconsideration of the formaldehyde 

requirements. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration 

on January 5, 2011. (In addition, on November 3, 2010, the 

Engine Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for 

judicial review of these requirements.) In the petition for 

reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha argued that formaldehyde is 

difficult and costly to measure. The petition requested that the 

HAP surrogate for 4SRB engines should be THC rather than 

 

2

 Memorandum from Melanie King, EPA Energy Strategies Group to 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines Located at Area Sources of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less Than or Equal to 

500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions. August 10, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0557. 
Page 20 of 197 

formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha submitted data from testing it 

conducted illustrating that THC reduction across the catalyst is 

an appropriate surrogate for HAP reduction across the catalyst.3

According to the petitioner, testing for THC is easier and less 

costly and would substantially reduce the burden of the rule for 

owners and operators of these engines. Testing for formaldehyde 

emissions could cost more than double that of testing for THC 

emissions and on a nationwide basis the EPA estimates that 

replacing formaldehyde testing with THC testing would result in 

substantial compliance cost savings annually while achieving the 

same reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data submitted by DresserWaukesha. The data provided indicate that a strong relationship 

exists between percentage reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the surrogate for HAP emissions in 

the NESHAP) on rich burn engines using non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA indicate that if the 

NSCR is reducing THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB engines, 

formaldehyde emissions are guaranteed to be reduced by at least 

76 percent, which is the percentage reduction required for the 

relevant engines. Indeed, the percentage reduction of 

formaldehyde is invariably well above the 76 percent level, and 

 

3

Letter from Dresser-Waukesha to Melanie King. Follow-up to 

November 18, 2010 Teleconference. December 6, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0662. 
Page 21 of 197 

is usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the EPA agrees with the 

petitioner that for SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and meeting the 

NESHAP by showing a percentage reduction of HAP, it would be 

appropriate to allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the 

NESHAP by showing a THC reduction of at least 30 percent. 

Including an optional THC compliance demonstration option would 

reduce the cost of compliance significantly while continuing to 

achieve the same level of HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the same. Consequently, the EPA 

is proposing amendments to allow owners and operators of certain 

stationary 4SRB engines (i.e., the ones currently subject to a 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement) to show compliance 

with an optional THC compliance demonstration option. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are presented below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to add an alternative method of 

demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP for stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for existing stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

area sources of HAP emissions that choose to meet the 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement of 76 percent or 

more. 
Page 22 of 197 

 Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the 

petition discussed above, the EPA is proposing to add a 

compliance demonstration option for stationary 4SRB engines 

meeting a 76 percent or more formaldehyde reduction. The 

compliance demonstration option would be an alternative to the 

existing method of demonstrating compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction standard, which is to test 

engines for formaldehyde. The alternative for owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines meeting a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction would be to test their engines for THC 

showing that the engine is achieving at least a 30 percent 

reduction of THC emissions. 

 Under the proposed amendments, existing and new stationary 

4SRB engines greater than 500 HP and located at major sources 

would still be required to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more or limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 parts per billion by volume, 

dry basis or less at 15 percent oxygen (O2). However, owners and 

operators choosing to meet the formaldehyde concentration limit 

would not have the THC demonstration compliance option, because 

EPA could not verify a clear relationship between concentrations 

of THC and concentrations of formaldehyde in exhaust from these 

SI 4SRB engines. For the reasons discussed in section II.C.1 of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing that existing stationary 
Page 23 of 197 

4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources located in populated areas be subject to an equipment 

standard and required to install a catalyst. These engines would 

be subject to testing to demonstrate initially and on an ongoing 

basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively that THC emissions are being reduced by 30 percent 

or more. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SRB engines 

less than or equal to 500 HP who are required to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

10.3 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 

15 percent O2 do not have the option to demonstrate compliance 

using THC and must continue to demonstrate compliance by testing 

for formaldehyde following the methods and procedures specified 

in the rule. 

 Owners and operators opting to use the THC compliance 

demonstration method must demonstrate compliance by showing that 

the average reduction of THC is equal to or greater than 30 

percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and 

demonstrating compliance by using the THC compliance 

demonstration option must conduct performance testing using 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A – Determination of 

Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 
Page 24 of 197 

Analyzer. Measurements of THC at the inlet and the outlet of the 

NSCR must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent O2 or 

equivalent carbon dioxide content. To correct to 15 percent O2, 

dry basis, owners and operators must measure oxygen using Method 

3, 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM Method D6522-

00 (2005) and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. Because owners and operators are complying with a 

percent reduction requirement, the method used must be suitable 

for the entire range of emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 25A is capable of measuring 

emissions down to 5 ppmv and is, therefore, an appropriate 

method for measuring THC emissions for compliance demonstration 

purposes. The EPA is allowing sources the option to meet a 

minimum THC percent reduction of 30 percent by using Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to demonstrate compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

1. Background 

 This action also proposes to amend provisions in the RICE 

NESHAP that currently allow owners and operators to operate 

stationary emergency engines for up to 15 hours per year as part 

of a demand response program if the RTO or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator have determined there are 
Page 25 of 197 

emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical 

blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, 

capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. 

The final rule did not allow emergency engines to be used for 

purposes of peak shaving or other non-emergency purposes as part 

of a financial arrangement. These provisions were included in 

the RICE NESHAP when requirements for existing stationary CI 

engines were finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648). Following 

the completion of that portion of the rule, the EPA received 

three main petitions for reconsideration. One petition was from 

CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC. (EnerNOC et al.)(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-

0404). Another petition was received from the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE 

DNREC) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0400). The third petition was from 

the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 

(OAR-2008-0708-0580). In addition to these main petitions the 

EPA received a substantial number of letters from others in the 

electric generation industry. 

 The petition from EnerNOC, et al., asked that EPA increase 

the period of time permitted for emergency demand response 

operation in the rule to 60 hours per year, or the minimum 

number of hours required by the emergency demand response 

program. By contrast, the DE DNREC petition asked EPA to 
Page 26 of 197 

reconsider the emergency demand response provision because of 

the adverse effects that it believes would result from increased 

emissions from these engines. The petition from NRECA requested 

that the EPA eliminate the restriction on the use of stationary 

emergency engines for demand response purposes. The EPA granted 

the petitions from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and NRECA, and 

issued a notice on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75937), requesting 

comments on whether to amend the 15 hours per year limitation on 

the operation of stationary emergency RICE participating in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 comments from a number of 

different entities including various state agencies, utilities, 

electric cooperatives and industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per year is not sufficient to 

meet current emergency demand response requirements for 

participation. For example, several emergency demand response 

programs have ISO tariff requirements greater than 15 hours per 

year, including the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

emergency demand response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the Pennsylvania Jersey 

Maryland (“PJM”) Interconnection, known as the Emergency Load 

Response Program, which has a tariff requirement of 60 hours per 

year; and the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”), which forecasts that 

backup resources would be expected for 55 hours over a 12-month 
Page 27 of 197 

period. Tariff requirements are developed to specify the 

mandatory time load resources (engines) must be willing and able 

to operate if the units are enrolled in the program. Conversely, 

some commenters urged the EPA to allow stationary emergency 

engines to only operate during true emergencies or when voltage 

or frequency varies beyond specified parameters. 

 Based on the EPA’s review of the petitions and comments 

that the EPA has received, the EPA has found it appropriate to 

propose to amend the current rule to increase the allowance for 

stationary emergency engine participation in emergency demand 

response programs to up to 100 hours per year, which would be 

included as part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 hours for 

owners of emergency engines to test and maintain their emergency 

engines. The EPA believes that the emergency demand response 

programs that exist across the country are important programs 

that protect the reliability and stability of the national 

electric service grid. Allowing stationary emergency engines to 

operate as part of emergency demand response programs can help 

prevent grid failure or blackouts, by allowing these engines to 

be used in circumstances of grid instability prior to the 

occurrence of blackouts. Preventing stationary emergency engines 

from being able to qualify and participate in emergency demand 

response programs without having to apply aftertreatment could 

force owners and operators to leave their engines out of these 
Page 28 of 197 

programs, which will impair the ability of ISOs and RTOs to use 

these relatively small, quick-starting and reliable sources of 

energy to protect the reliability of their systems. The EPA does 

not wish to potentially jeopardize electrical reliability or 

create a disincentive for stationary emergency engines to 

participate in these programs. The circumstances during which 

the EPA would allow stationary emergency engines to operate for 

emergency demand response purposes include periods during which 

the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard 

EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA Level 2 

alerts there is insufficient energy supply and a true potential 

for electrical blackouts. System operators must call on all 

available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts in order to 

stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation 

is a good indicator of severe instability on the system. 

Consistent normal voltage provided by the utility is often 

called power quality and is an important factor in local 

electric system reliability. Reliability of the system requires 

electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The 
Page 29 of 197 

American National Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 

defines the maximum allowable voltage sag at below 5 percent. On 

the local distribution level local voltage levels are therefore 

important and a 5 percent or more change in the normal voltage 

or frequency is substantial and an indication that additional 

resources are needed to ensure local distribution system 

reliability. This situation would be indicative of severe 

instability on the system. 

Emergency demand response programs rely on agreements under 

which owners of engine agree to make their engines available to 

be called upon for a specific number of hours per year, as 

required by the relevant ISO or RTO tariff, under specified 

circumstances considered to indicate emergencies. In order to be 

enrolled in an emergency demand response program, participants 

must qualify their engines and must be able to use their 

emergency engines for the number of hours the program requires. 

Engines are not generally called upon for the maximum hours 

required by the tariffs. However, even though the engine may not 

be called at all or may run for fewer hours than the program 

requires it to be available in a particular year, the engine 

must still be available for those theoretical number of hours in 

order to join the program. Demand response contracts require 

more hours than the 15 hours per year that is currently in the 

regulations, and the commenters state that the 15 hours per year 
Page 30 of 197 

is not a sufficient amount of time to ensure the reliability of 

the program; some programs require up to 60 hours per year, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble. For these reasons, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to allow additional hours for 

emergency demand response operation in order for such programs 

to be accessible to stationary emergency engines. Consequently, 

the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule to increase the 

limitation on emergency demand response operation to 100 hours 

per year for stationary emergency engines. It is expected that 

owners and operators of stationary emergency engines that seek 

to qualify their units as demand resources would with the 

proposed increase to 100 hours per year be able to meet the 

operational and qualification requirements of the different ISOs 

and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency engines that participate in 

demand response programs may not be called upon at all, but must 

nonetheless be available to operate for the required amount 

stipulated by the specific program. The purpose of the limited 

allowance for emergency demand response is to respond to 

emergencies, and the EPA is persuaded by the information that 

has been submitted that 15 hours per year is an insufficient 

amount of time to allow for emergency demand response needs, 

given past experience. The EPA believes 100 hours per year is 

sufficient to cover any potential demand response operation as 
Page 31 of 197 

well as the required maintenance and testing that is also 

included within the 100 hours of operation. 

The EPA has previously determined that stationary emergency 

engines typically operate well below 50 hours per year and more 

commonly about 1 to 2 hours per month. A survey conducted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicated the average 

yearly operation for emergency diesel engines was 31 hours over 

a period of 3 years. The majority of those hours were for the 

purpose of maintenance and testing; less than 5 hours was for 

interruptible service contracts, and the remaining amount for 

emergency/standby operation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011). Data 

from demand response programs in ISO-NE and PJM territories show 

that backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours 

during the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.4

 

However, again, emergency units must be available to 

operate more than that in most cases to qualify for demand 

response programs. For instance, PJM requires a minimum ISO 

tariff of 60 hours per year of engine availability for program 

participation. Consequently, in order to ensure that a 

sufficient amount of operating time is available for maintenance 

and readiness testing, and for demand response operation, the 

EPA is proposing 100 hours of operation. A number of commenters 

 

4

 Memorandum from Stacy Angel, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to 

Doug Hurley, Synapse Energy Economics. Sample Revenue for a 1 MW 

Backup Generation Unit. June 27, 2011. 
Page 32 of 197 

requested that an allowance of 100 hours per year be allowed in 

order to provide adequate hours consistent with minimum required 

hours that customers must be available to operate and to address 

local distribution system emergencies. For instance, in Hawaii, 

the emergency demand response program operated by the Hawaiian 

Electric Company requires that emergency engines be able to 

operate for 100 hours per year in the event of an emergency in 

order to participate in the program. In order to provide a 

sufficient amount of time to cover annual maintenance and 

testing, which is typically more than 20 hours per year 

according to the survey conducted by CARB (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0029-0011), plus to cover hours necessary for qualifying for 

emergency demand response programs or local distribution system 

emergencies, EPA believes an allowance of 100 hours per year 

would be appropriate for these activities. Taking into account 

that there may be situations where annual maintenance and 

testing could exceed the typical 1 to 2 hours per month and 

accounting for other emergency demand response programs that 

require more than 60 hours per year for program participation 

(e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), the EPA believes that 100 

hours per year is appropriate for emergency demand response plus 

maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule would mean that 

stationary emergency engines could operate for a total of 100 
Page 33 of 197 

hours per year for emergency demand response operation as part 

of the 100 hours already permitted for maintenance and readiness 

testing while maintaining their status as emergency units, 

rather than non-emergency units, and continue to meet the 

requirements that apply to emergency engines. 

 On the issue of peak shaving and non-emergency demand 

response, the EPA is proposing to include a temporary limited 

allowance for peak shaving and other types of non-emergency use 

as part of a financial arrangement for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources of HAP, if the peak shaving is 

done as part of a peak shaving (or load management) program with 

the local distribution system operator. The power generated 

under this allowance can only be used at the facility or towards 

the local system. 

 The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to include 

the option for existing stationary emergency engines at area 

sources to operate for a small number (50) of hours per year for 

any non-emergency reason and not be penalized or considered a 

non-emergency engine and subsequently required to install 

aftertreatment that could be prohibitively costly for these 

sources in the near term. The EPA is proposing that the 50-hour 

allowance for peak shaving for emergency engines at area sources 

be allowed for a limited period of time, but then removed after 

April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would also be limited to 
Page 34 of 197 

operation as part of a peak shaving (load management program) 

with the local distribution system operator. Owners would still 

have the pre-existing 50 hours per year allowance for nonemergency operation after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours 

could no longer be used for peak shaving. The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources an additional 

resource for maintaining reliability while facilities are coming 

into compliance with the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). While the EPA does 

not expect the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units to cause regional reliability problems, 

this limited allowance would allow the owners and operators of 

these engines more flexibility to run reliability critical units 

in order to minimize potential grid-related interruptions as 

coal- and oil-fired baseload power plants may be temporarily 

shut down to install emission controls to comply with the NESHAP 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

 Including this allowance is important for small electric 

cooperatives and other entities located at area sources that use 

these engines to maintain voltage and electric reliability. Many 

rural electric cooperatives enter agreements with owners of 

small emergency engines and rely on the engines to reduce demand 

on the central power supply during periods of high demand, which 

reduces the cost of power during periods of high demand for the 
Page 35 of 197 

members of the cooperative. Commenters promoting the continued 

use of peak shaving programs said that maintaining the cost of 

power as low as possible is important across the country, but is 

particularly of significant importance to rural electric 

cooperatives that, according to the commenter, service customers 

in the most economically depressed areas of the country, where 

options are the most limited. The commenters argued that if 

small emergency engines would no longer be permitted to operate 

for peak shaving purposes without having to be reclassified as 

non-emergency engines and subsequently subject to costly 

emissions controls, owners could no longer afford to participate 

in such programs. Cooperatives argued that this would lead to 

increased costs that would ultimately be passed along to the 

customers. Commenters also maintained that keeping peak shaving 

programs would not lead to additional public health risks or 

emissions because the operation for peak shaving is minimal. If 

peak shaving is not allowed under the rule, commenters said that 

this would lead to an increase in central power station capacity 

and possibly more transmission and distribution line capacity to 

accommodate the increase in demand resulting from eliminating 

small emergency engines from being used. This could lead to a 

larger impact on the environment and public health than allowing 

a small number of hours for peak shaving purposes. Certain small 

and remote facilities also rely on financial programs to 
Page 36 of 197 

generate additional income in order to maintain their engines 

and stay in operation. The additional funds can be essential for 

many smaller facilities and operations. Providing a limited 

allowance for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response 

could generate sufficient income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where these engines are in 

service. In order to further limit the operation of these 

engines to small, remote facilities, the EPA is proposing that 

the power generated under this allowance can only be used at the 

facility or towards the local system. In addition, while the EPA 

is proposing this allowance until the end of April 16, 2017, the 

EPA does not believe it is appropriate to continue the program 

beyond that time. Generators receive considerable compensation 

for their availability in peak shaving programs and the EPA 

believes that it is not appropriate to allow these engines to 

continue receiving compensation for this non-emergency use 

beyond 2017 without having to reduce their emissions. The 

generators must by that time decide whether to restrict their 

use to emergency or limited non-compensated non-emergency use or 

to reduce the emissions from their engines. The EPA also 

encourages engine owners and operators, as well as larger system 

planners, to consider the use of alternative peak shaving 

options, such as load curtailments, lower emitting distributed 
Page 37 of 197 

generation, combined heat and power, and reduced line losses on 

the electricity grid. 

The previous estimate of emissions from stationary 

emergency engines is not expected to change due to this proposed 

limited allowance. To estimate emissions from stationary 

emergency engines, the EPA has previously estimated that 

emergency engines would on average operate for 50 hours per 

year. There is a wide range in how much these engines operate 

(some well below 50 hours per year), but on average and to be 

conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is still 

representative and consequently the environmental impact the EPA 

has calculated previously remains appropriate. In consideration 

of all these issues, the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule 

to provide a limited allowance for peak shaving for existing 

stationary emergency engines at area sources of HAP. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

a. Emergency Demand Response. Based on the discussion in section 

II.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the 

current provisions for stationary engines used for emergency 

demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing 

to amend are in §§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) allows a maximum of 

15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation 
Page 38 of 197 

under certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) 

currently includes an allowance of 100 hours per year for 

purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE 

be permitted to operate their engines as part of an emergency 

demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is 

permitted for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). 

Owners and operators of stationary emergency engines can operate 

for emergency demand response during periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an EEA Level 2 

as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergency and during periods where there is a deviation of 

voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. The hours spent for emergency demand 

response operation are added to the hours spent for maintenance 

and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. 

If the total time spent for demand response operation and 

maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the engine 

will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart 

and will need to meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be called 

to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or 
Page 39 of 197 

equivalent to maintain the reliability of the bulk power system, 

but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, there is currently no 

emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit 

on the use of emergency engines for routine testing and 

maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those engines were not the 

focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did 

not make any changes to the requirements for those engines as 

part of the 2010 amendments. For consistency, the EPA is now 

also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to 

operate their engines as part of a demand response program as 

well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for 

maintenance and testing. 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

CI and SI engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for 

engines subject to the RICE NESHAP. The NSPS regulations 

currently do not include such an allowance for emergency demand 

response operation. For the reasons discussed in section II.B of 

this preamble as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to allow 
Page 40 of 197 

stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand 

response programs and remain being considered emergency units, 

and for consistency across engine regulations, the EPA is 

proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under 

the NSPS regulations. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, to specify that emergency engines may 

participate in demand response programs for up to 100 hours per 

year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of 

the emergency engines. 

b. Peak Shaving and other Non-emergency Use as Part of a 

Financial Arrangement. In addition to the changes the EPA is 

proposing related to emergency demand response operation, the 

EPA is also including a further provision for owners and 

operators of existing stationary emergency RICE located at area 

sources for the reasons discussed in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble. Paragraph §63.6640(f) currently allows owners and 

operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate their engine 

for 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations. As currently 

written, the 50 hours per year for 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; 
Page 41 of 197 

except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines 

may operate the engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as 

part of an emergency demand response program. As discussed, the 

15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to participate 

in emergency demand response programs is being increased to 100 

hours per year, but will also include hours spent towards 

maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the emergency 

engines. However, additionally, the EPA is also proposing that 

stationary emergency engines located at area sources be 

permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently 

allowed under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards 

any non-emergency operation, including operation as part of a 

financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving 

allowance would expire in 2017. The EPA is specifying that the 

power can only be used at the facility or towards the local 

system, and the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as 

part of a program with the local distribution system operator. 

The EPA is also clarifying that an engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak shaving, will be considered a 

non-emergency engine and subject to the requirements for nonemergency engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources
Page 42 of 197 

1. Background 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the requirements that 

apply to existing stationary non-emergency 4 stroke SI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP emissions, 

which are generally natural gas fired engines. Currently, the 

RICE NESHAP requires owners and operators of such engines to 1) 

either meet a CO concentration limit of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 

percent O2 or reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or more, if 

the engines are 4SLB; and 2) to meet a formaldehyde 

concentration limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, if the engines are 

4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects that the standards would be 

met using aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 4SLB engines 

and NSCR for 4SRB engines. In addition to these emission 

requirements, owners and operators of existing stationary 4-

stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are also 

subject to monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

After the final requirements for existing stationary SI 

engines greater than 500 HP at area sources were published on 

August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0581), the American Petroleum 

Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582), the Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0584), and the 
Page 43 of 197 

Gas Processors Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0587) 

requesting that the EPA reconsider the requirements of the final 

rule. The petitioners expressed many similar concerns. As 

relevant to this rulemaking, petitioners stated that the EPA did 

not take into account the difference in population density and 

subsequently did not consider the difference in health impacts 

in remote versus more heavily populated locations. In the 

petitioners’ opinion, there should be less concern about engines 

that are located farther away from people; the petitioners 

believed that the EPA has substantial latitude in requiring less 

stringent standards for owners and operators of stationary 

engines in remote areas. 

 While the EPA does not share all of the views of the 

petitioners regarding the difference between engines based on 

their location, the EPA does believe that it is reasonable to 

create a subcategory of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP located in areas remote from human 

activity. Engines located in remote areas that are not close to 

significant human activity may be difficult to access, may not 

have electricity or communications, and may be unmanned most of 

the time. The costs of the emission controls, testing, and 

continuous monitoring requirements may be unreasonable when 

compared to the HAP emission reductions that would be achieved, 

considering that the engines are in sparsely populated areas. 
Page 44 of 197 

The EPA believes that establishing a subcategory for SI engines 

at area sources of HAP located in sparsely populated areas 

accomplishes the agency’s goals and is adequate in protecting 

public health. 

 The EPA is proposing to subcategorize sparsely populated 

engines using the existing DOT classification system for natural 

gas pipelines. This system classifies locations based on their 

distance to natural gas pipelines covered by the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration safety regulations. 

The DOT system defines a class location unit as an onshore area 

that extends 220 yards or 200 meters on either side of the 

centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) length of 

natural gas pipeline. The DOT approach further classifies 

pipeline locations into Class 1 through Class 4 locations based 

on the number of buildings intended for human occupancy. A Class 

1 location is defined as an offshore area or any class location 

unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry have 

indicated to the EPA that the DOT system is well-established and 

there would be substantial overlap between engines on natural 

gas pipelines affected by the rule and covered by the DOT 

pipeline classification system. Incorporating this approach 

would also create harmonization between the EPA and DOT and 

would reduce the implementation and enforcement burden for 

Deleted: pipeline 
Page 45 of 197 

states. Implementation for affected sources would also be less 

burdensome because the system is already in place and used by 

the natural gas pipeline industry and covers the majority of 

these engines. Stakeholders have indicated they are required to 

review the class location status of natural gas pipeline 

segments annually. The EPA believes this approach is reasonable 

for defining the subcategory of remote engines for those engines 

that are associated with both natural gas and hazardous liquid 

pipelines. For those engines not associated with pipelines, the 

EPA is using similar criteria. An engine would be considered to 

be in sparsely populated areas if within 0.25 mile radius of the 

engine there are 5 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

The EPA is proposing management practices as generally 

available control technologies for existing stationary SI 4SLB 

and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines located in sparsely 

populated areas. Given the remote location of the engines from 

human activity, the EPA believes that it is appropriate not to 

include requirements that would necessitate aftertreatment and 

extensive testing and monitoring. The EPA has previously 

estimated that the costs of oxidation catalyst for existing 4SLB 

and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources are $310 and $150 

million, for capital and annual costs, respectively. The capital 

and annual costs of the RICE NESHAP for existing 4SLB and 4SRB 

Deleted: DOT-regulated
Page 46 of 197 

engines above 500 HP at area sources would be $30 million and 

$12 million, respectively, if these proposed amendments are 

incorporated into the rule. Creating a subcategory of these 

engines for the ones located in sparsely populated areas and not 

mandating emission controls would significantly reduce the cost 

of the rule for such engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source nonemergency engines that are located in populated areas, the EPA 

is proposing an equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst that will have to be 

tested initially and annually to ensure that the catalyst is 

working properly and reducing emissions as required. In 

addition, these units will be required to have devices to shut 

down the engine if the catalyst is exposed to dangerous 

temperatures or have continuous monitoring equipment installed 

to record catalyst inlet temperatures. The EPA is proposing 

shorter test duration and less rigorous methods than currently 

required while still ensuring that HAP reductions remain at 

expected levels for these engines located in populated areas. 

The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed 

below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 Owners and operators of engines in sparsely populated 

areas would have to conduct a review of the surrounding area 
Page 47 of 197 

every 12 months to determine if the nearby population has 

changed. If the engine no longer meets the criteria for a 

sparsely populated area the owner and operator must within 1 

year comply with the emission standards specified below for 

populated areas. Owners and operators of existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB greater than 500 HP at area sources that are in 

sparsely populated areas as described above would be required to 

perform the following: 

 Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 

 Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary; 

and 

 Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) of the rule in order to extend the 

specified oil change requirement. The oil analysis must be 

performed at the same frequency specified for changing the oil 

in Table 2d of the rule. The analysis program must at a minimum 

analyze the following three parameters: Total Acid Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total Acid Number increases by 
Page 48 of 197 

more than 3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram from 

Total Acid Number of the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has 

changed by more than 20 percent from the viscosity of the oil 

when new; or percent water content (by volume) is greater than 

0.5. If all of these condemning limits are not exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If 

any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator 

must change the oil within 2 days of receiving the results of 

the analysis; if the engine is not in operation when the results 

of the analysis are received, the engine owner or operator must 

change the oil within 2 days or before commencing operation, 

whichever is later. The owner or operator must keep records of 

the parameters that are analyzed as part of the program, the 

results of the analysis, and the oil changes for the engine. The 

analysis program must be part of the maintenance plan for the 

engine. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB 

area source engines above 500 HP in sparsely populated areas 

would also have to operate and maintain the stationary RICE and 

aftertreatment control device (if any) according to the 

manufacturer's emission-related written instructions or develop 

their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent 

practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a 
Page 49 of 197 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. 

 For engines in populated areas, i.e., existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP at area 

sources that are located on DOT Class 2 through Class 4 pipeline 

segments or, for engines not associated with pipelines, that do 

not meet the 0.25 mile radius with 5 or less buildings criteria, 

the EPA is proposing to adopt an equipment standard requiring 

the installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP emissions. Owners 

and operators of existing area source 4SLB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP in populated areas would be required to 

install an oxidation catalyst. Owners and operators of existing 

area source 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in 

populated areas would be required to install NSCR. Owners and 

operators must conduct an initial test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions 

or a CO concentration level of 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2, if the 

engine is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and operators must 

conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO reduction or a 30 

percent THC reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB engine. The 

initial test must consist of three test runs. Each test run must 

be of at least 15 minute duration, except that each test run 

conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 
Page 50 of 197 

subpart ZZZZ must consist of one measurement cycle as defined by 

the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase 

measurement. To measure CO, emission sources must use the CO 

methods already specified in subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The THC testing must 

be conducted using EPA Method 25A. 

 The owner or operator of both engine types must also use a 

high temperature shutdown device that detects if the catalyst 

inlet temperature is too high, or, alternatively, the owner or 

operator can monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously 

and maintain the temperature within the range specified in the 

rule. For 4SLB engines the catalyst inlet temperature must 

remain at or above 450°F and at or below 1,350°F. For 4SRB 

engines the temperature range must be greater than or equal to 

750°F and less than or equal to 1,250°F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in addition to the initial 

performance test conduct annual checks of the catalyst to ensure 

proper catalyst activity. The annual check of the catalyst must 

at a minimum consist of one 15-minute run using the methods 

discussed above, except that each test run conducted using the 

proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at 

least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. Owners and 

operators of 4SLB engines must demonstrate during the catalyst 
Page 51 of 197 

activity test that the catalyst achieves at least a 93 percent 

reduction in CO emissions or that the engine exhaust CO 

emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that their catalyst 

is reducing CO emissions by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively, that THC emissions are being reduced by at least 

30 percent during the catalyst activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do not exceed the levels 

required for the initial test or annual checks of the catalyst, 

then the catalyst is considered to be working properly. If the 

emissions exceed the specified pollutant levels in the rule, the 

exceedance(s) is/are not considered a violation, but the owner 

or operator would be required to shut down the engine and take 

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

the catalyst, as appropriate). A follow-up test must be 

conducted within 7 days of the engine being started up again to 

demonstrate that the emission levels are being met. If the 

retest shows that the emissions continue to exceed the specified 

levels, the stationary RICE must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the engine may not operate, except for 

purposes of start-up and testing, until the owner/operator 

demonstrates through testing that the emissions do not exceed 

the levels specified. 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 
Page 52 of 197 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP, the EPA required 

existing non-emergency CI engines above 300 HP to meet a 

standard of either 70 percent reduction of CO emissions or 49 

ppmvd CO, for engines between 300 and 500 HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for 

engines above 500 HP. The requirements also included testing and 

monitoring provisions. As with all requirements for existing 

engines in that rule, owners and operators were required to meet 

the requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the 

regulations (May 3, 2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for existing stationary 

CI engines, stakeholders from the agricultural industry in the 

San Joaquin Valley area of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these requirements on engines 

in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in San Joaquin Valley 

certified to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89 that were 

installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, 

stationary CI engines at area sources are existing if 

construction of the engine commenced prior to June 12, 2006. 

These 17 Tier 3 engines in the San Joaquin Valley, which were 

built to meet stringent emission standards, would not be able to 

comply with the applicable RICE NESHAP emission standards for 

existing engines without further testing and monitoring, and 
Page 53 of 197 

possible retrofit with further controls, due to differences in 

the emission standards and testing protocols in the RICE NESHAP 

versus the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. However, an 

identical engine certified to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 

standards for engines above 560 kilowatts (kW)) in 40 CFR part 

89 that was installed after June 12, 2006, would not have to be 

retrofit in order to comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI 

engines installed after June 12, 2006, at area sources of HAP 

are required to comply with the NSPS for stationary CI engines, 

which requires engines to be certified to the standards in 40 

CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as applicable. Thus, a 2006 

model year stationary CI engine installed after June 12, 2006, 

that is certified to the applicable standards would meet the 

requirements of the NESHAP without further controls or testing. 

While the EPA does not know if other certified Tier 3 engines 

besides these 17 engines in the San Joaquin Valley were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the same 

rationale should apply to any such engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 standards (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) are technologically stringent regulations 

and believes it is unnecessary to require further regulation of 

engines meeting these standards. Engines meeting the Tier 3 

standards typically employed emission control technologies such 

as combustion optimization and better fuel control to meet the 
Page 54 of 197 

Tier 3 standards. In order to address the concerns raised by the 

engine owners in the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA is proposing 

changes to amend the requirements for any certified Tier 3 (Tier 

2 for engines above 560 kW) stationary CI engine located at an 

area source and installed before June 12, 2006. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to specify that any existing certified Tier 

3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) CI engine that was installed 

before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This 

amendment would include any existing stationary Tier 3 (Tier 2 

for engines above 560 kW) certified CI engine located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

 Another concern brought to the EPA’s attention by the San 

Joaquin Valley agricultural industry is that due to state and 

local requirements in the San Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are regulated as existing 

sources under the NESHAP must be replaced in the next few years, 

only a short time after the emission standards for existing 

engines must be met. Specifically, the San Joaquin Valley APCD 

rule for internal combustion engines (Rule 4702) requires Tier 1 

and Tier 2 certified engines to meet Tier 4 standards by January 

1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date, but no later 

than June 1, 2018. The concern is that owners and operators of 

these engines would have to install aftertreatment by 2013 to 

meet the emission standards of the RICE NESHAP and then only a 
Page 55 of 197 

few years later be required to replace their engines per San 

Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are 

scheduled to be replaced under the local rule. The EPA has not 

identified any engines outside the San Joaquin Valley APCD area 

that are in the same or similar situation (i.e., required to be 

replaced shortly after the compliance date for existing 

engines), but the EPA does not preclude the possibility that 

there are such engines in other areas, and requests comment and 

information on other areas that may have similar concerns. 

 The EPA does not think it is appropriate to require 

emission controls on a stationary CI engine that is going to be 

retired only a short time after the rule goes into effect. 

Stationary CI engines would have to comply with this rule by May 

3, 2013, and owners of engines above 300 HP are expected to have 

to install aftertreatment on their engines in order to meet the 

emission standards. The EPA estimates that the one-time cost to 

equip a 500 HP stationary CI engine with the controls necessary 

to meet the emission standards under this rule is close to 

$14,000 and more than $3,000 on a yearly basis, not accounting 

for additional costs associated with monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting. These engines (equipped with 

aftertreatment) could end up being in operation for less than 2 

years or at most only 5 years before having to be replaced with 
Page 56 of 197 

a certified Tier 4 engine, as required by San Joaquin Valley 

District Rule 4702. It would not be reasonable to require the 

engine owner to invest in costly controls and monitoring 

equipment for an engine that will be replaced shortly after the 

installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions 

to address this concern. The EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements for existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

CI engines located at area sources that are greater than 300 HP 

that are subject to a state or local rule that requires the 

engine to be replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow these 

engines to meet management practices for a period of 2 years 

starting with the applicable May 3, 2013, compliance date. The 

EPA believes a period of 2 years is appropriate and provides 

owners enough time to replace their engines without mandating a 

possibly cost prohibitive requirement to change all of the 

engines in a short amount of time, while still requiring that 

replacement of the engine or a retrofit of the engine occur 

relatively quickly after the owner would have to comply with the 

NESHAP. The EPA is proposing that these engines be subject to 

management practices until May 3, 2015, after which time the CO 

emission standards discussed above (and that are in Table 2d of 

the rule) apply. The management practices include requirements 
Page 57 of 197 

for when to inspect and replace the engine oil and filter, air 

cleaner, hoses and belts. The complete details of which 

management practices are required are shown in Table 2d of the 

rule. Owners and operators of these existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources of HAP emissions that intend to 

meet management practices rather than the emission limits prior 

to May 3, 2015, must submit a notification by March 3, 2013, 

stating that they intend to use this provision and identifying 

the state or local regulation that the engine is subject to. 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska

1. Background 

 The RICE NESHAP currently specifies less stringent 

requirements for existing non-emergency CI engines at area 

sources located in remote areas of Alaska. Remote areas are 

defined as those not accessible by the FAHS. The FAHS includes 

areas with year-round ferry service that are not on the 

contiguous road system. Under the current regulation, stationary 

non-emergency CI engines at area sources in areas of Alaska that 

are not accessible by the FAHS are subject to management 

practices as opposed to numerical emission standards. 

Following the publication of the final rule in 2010, the 

EPA received requests to expand the definition of remote areas 

of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that facilities in areas that 

are accessible by the FAHS but are not connected to the Alaska 
Page 58 of 197 

Railbelt grid face the same challenges as those in areas not 

accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska Railbelt Grid refers to the 

service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend 

from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These 

utilities are the Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach 

Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer 

Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, and the 

City of Seward Electric System. According to the stakeholders, 

one reason for broadening the definition of remote areas in 

Alaska is high energy costs, which provide a natural incentive 

to run CI engines as little as possible. The cost of energy is 

utilities’ greatest concern in Alaska. Also, the stakeholders 

indicated that extreme weather conditions in certain areas of 

Alaska is another reason for including additional areas in the 

definition of remote areas of Alaska. The climate issue is 

unique to remote areas of Alaska that experience some of the 

most extreme temperatures in the country. Heavy snowfall and 

high winds are not uncommon in several areas that are accessible 

by the FAHS. For instance, Copper Valley Electric Association 

(CVEA) is a utility accessible by the FAHS, but it includes 

areas that face the same challenges as other communities not 

accessible by the FAHS. The utility operates on an isolated grid 

and relies on diesel power generation. In one of CVEA’s 

territories, Valdez, Alaska, CVEA indicated that this area 
Page 59 of 197 

experiences brutal conditions and stated that Valdez is 

considered to have the greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) 

in any city of the United States. Also, winds at more than 100 

miles per hour are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, according to 

CVEA. Temperatures between 40 and 50 below zero are also not 

abnormal, which emphasizes the extreme reliance on power, CVEA 

asserted. Travel times and accessibility are issues on a regular 

basis, but can be additionally exacerbated due to severe 

weather, which in some cases may lead to avalanches and road 

closings. In particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, in the 

event of poor weather conditions and road closings, there are in 

many cases no alternate roads to travel on. Further, access to 

specific isolated sites can also be problematic in particular 

remote areas of Alaska and the problems are unique to Alaska 

because of the infrastructure and environment. For example, 

communities made the case that sources along the AMHS that are 

only accessible by the AMHS should be treated the same way as 

communities not accessible by the FAHS. The AMHS primarily 

serves passengers and vehicles, and is not intended for 

transporting goods. Therefore, the same methods used to bring in 

goods to communities not on the FAHS are the same as those 

Alaskan villages served only by the AMHS. Goods are typically 

brought in to remote communities by barge and this is another 

example of a scenario that is unique to Alaska. Other arguments 
Page 60 of 197 

for expanding the definition of remote areas of Alaska beyond 

those not accessible by the FAHS include very low population 

density in many other remote areas although accessible by the 

FAHS, and the fact that many of these areas are not connected to 

the electric grid and rely on back up diesel generation to 

support fluctuating renewable energy systems. The energy supply 

system is another area that is particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country where the majority of 

customers are connected to the grid. Therefore, for the reasons 

discussed, the EPA is proposing expansion of the remote area 

source category. This proposal is supported by the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and communities with 

whom the EPA has discussed this issue. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to expand the current definition of 

remote areas of Alaska to extend beyond areas that are not 

accessible by the FAHS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the FAHS and that meet 

all of the following criteria are also considered remote and 

subject to management practices under the rule: 

 The stationary CI engine is located in an area not 

connected to the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

 At least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine 

per year is used for residential purposes, and 
Page 61 of 197 

 The system capacity is less than 12 megawatts, or the 

engine is used exclusively for backup power for renewable 

energy and is used less than 500 hours per year on a 10-

year rolling average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the remote classification to 

engines that are used at least partially for residential 

purposes, where the impact of higher energy costs is of greatest 

concern. The classification is further limited to sources that 

are used infrequently as backup for renewable power, or that are 

at smaller capacity facilities, which are generally in more 

sparsely populated areas. 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions

 The EPA is making some minor corrections to the stationary 

engine rules to address miscellaneous issues. The EPA is making 

some minor revisions in the rules to correct mistakes in the 

current rules or to clarify the rules. The revisions are as 

follows: 

 Revising Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

to correct language requiring the pressure drop to be at 

plus or minus 10 percent 100 percent load for all engines. 

The engines that were regulated in 2010 are not subject to 

the load requirements and therefore the EPA is correcting 

these tables to make this clear. 
Page 62 of 197 

 Adding a footnote to Table 1b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ stating that sources can petition the Administrator 

for a different temperature range consistent with Table 2b 

of the rule. 

 Correcting rows 8 and 10 in Table 2d of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ to indicate that the requirements apply to 

non-emergency, non-black start stationary RICE greater than 

500 HP that are 4SLB and 4SRB that operate more than 24 

hours per year, as intended in the original rule. 

 Revising the language in §63.6625(b) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ that states “...in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section” to “in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section.” 

 Changing Tables 2c and 2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 

where it currently specifies to inspect air cleaner, to 

also specify that it must be replaced as necessary. 

 Revising §63.6620(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to 

indicate that testing must be conducted within plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load for stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at a major source (except 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE greater than 500 

HP located at a major source) that are subject to testing. 
Page 63 of 197 

 Specifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, the operating limitations (pressure drop and 

catalyst inlet temperature) in Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ do not have to be met during startup. 

 For consistency, and as provided in the original RICE 

NESHAP for other stationary RICE, clarifying in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ that the existing stationary RICE 

regulated in 2010 (i.e., engines constructed before June 

12, 2006 that are less than or equal to 500 HP located at 

major sources or engines located at area sources) must burn 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 

of the gross heat input on an annual basis in order to 

qualify as a landfill or digester gas engine under the 

rule. 

 Clarifying §60.4207(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII to 

specify that owners and operators of stationary CI engines 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that are subject to the 

subpart that use diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b), except owners 

and operators may use up any diesel fuel acquired prior to 

October 1, 2010, that does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

 Adding appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which 

includes procedures that can be used for measuring CO 
Page 64 of 197 

emissions from existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE above 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that are 

complying with the emission limits in Table 2d of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

 Reinstating the footnotes for Table 2 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. The footnotes were inadvertently removed when 

the rule was amended on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37954). 

 Adding “part 60” in Table 4 of the NESHAP, in row 2 where 

it refers to 40 CFR appendix A. 

 Clarifying in §63.6625(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

that a continuous emission monitoring system is only 

required to be installed at the outlet of the control 

device for engines that are complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of CO. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that use gasoline. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are rich burn engines that use LPG. 
Page 65 of 197 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(d) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are not gasoline engines or rich 

burn engines that use LPG. 

G. Compliance Date

 The EPA has received questions regarding whether the 

compliance dates for engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and 

this proposed reconsideration will be extended. Affected sources 

that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about 

having sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance 

date, which is May 3, 2013, for existing stationary CI RICE and 

October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with 

compliance in the event that the EPA does not finalize changes 

that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in 

this action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, 

and October 19, 2013, compliance dates, because there are many 

engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, the EPA notes that 

sources that are affected by the reconsideration and that may 

need additional time to install controls to comply with the 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to 

install controls, as specified in 40 CFR 63.6(i). 
Page 66 of 197 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimates that the rule with the proposed 

amendments incorporated will reduce emissions from existing 

stationary RICE as shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The 

emissions reductions the EPA previously estimated for the 2010 

amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown for comparison. 

Reductions are shown for the year 2013, which is the first year 

the final RICE NESHAP will be implemented for existing 

stationary RICE. 

Table 1. Summary of Reductions for Existing Stationary RICE 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 

in the year 2013 

2010 Final Rule 

2010 Final Rule with 

these Proposed 

Amendments 

CI SI CI SI 

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

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

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

NOx N/A 96,479 N/A 9,648 

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

 The EPA estimates that more than 900,000 stationary CI 

engines will be subject to the rule in total, but only a small 

number of stationary CI engines are affected by the proposed 

amendments in this action. It is estimated that approximately 

330,000 stationary SI engines will be subject to the rule in 

total; however, only a subset of stationary SI engines are 
Page 67 of 197 

affected by the proposed amendments in this action. The decrease 

in estimated reductions for SI engines is primarily due to 

proposed amendments to the requirements for existing 4SRB and 

4SLB SI engines larger than 500 HP at area sources of HAP that 

are in remote areas. Those engines were required by the 2010 

rule to meet emission limits that were expected to require the 

installation of aftertreatment to reduce emissions; under these 

proposed amendments, those engines are required to meet 

management practices that would not require the installation of 

aftertreatment. Further information regarding the estimated 

reductions of this final rule can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate any reductions 

associated with the minor changes to the NSPS for stationary CI 

and SI engines. 

B. What are the cost impacts?

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

cost of the original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The EPA 

estimates that with these proposed amendments incorporated the 

cost of the rule for existing stationary RICE will be as shown 

in Table 2 of this preamble. The costs the EPA previously 

estimated for the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown 

for comparison. 
Page 68 of 197 

Table 2. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary RICE

Engine 2010 Final Rule 2010 Final Rule with these 

Proposed Amendments 

Total Annual Cost 

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

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

Total Capital Cost

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

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

Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts of the 

proposed amendments, including the cost of the proposed 

amendments in 2010 dollars, can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate costs associated 

with the changes to the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines. 

The changes to the NSPS are minor and are not expected to impact 

the costs of those rules. 

C. What are the benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of 

these rules will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP 

as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including 

CO, NOx and VOC. NOx and VOC are precursors to PM2.5 (particles

smaller than 2.5 microns) and ozone. The criteria pollutant 

benefits are considered co-benefits for these rules. For these 

rules, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits 
Page 69 of 197 

associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from emission reductions 

of NOx and directly emitted PM2.5. 

The EPA previously estimated that the monetized co-benefits 

in 2013 of the stationary CI NESHAP would be $940 million to 

$2,300 million (2008 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$850 million to $2,100 million (2008 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate.5

 For stationary SI engines, EPA previously 

estimated that the monetized co-benefits in 2013 would be $510 

million to $1,200 million (2009 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $460 million to $1,100 million (2009 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate.6

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

emission reductions of the rules. In addition to revising the 

anticipated emission reductions, we have also updated the 

methodology used to calculate the co-benefits to be consistent 

with methods used in more recent rulemakings, which is 

summarized below and discussed in more detail in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA). We estimate the monetized co-benefits of 

 

5

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Compression Ignition 

Engines NESHAP: Final Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

February. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/CIRICENESHAPRIA2-17-

0cleanpublication.pdf. 

6

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE 

NESHAP: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/riceriafinal.pdf. 
Page 70 of 197 

the proposed amendments of the CI NESHAP in 2013 to be $770 

million to $1,900 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate and $690 million to $1,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. For SI engines, we estimate the monetized 

co-benefits of the proposed amendments in 2013 to be $62 million 

to $150 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$55 million to $140 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates 

fall between these two estimates.7

 A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates for CI and SI engines at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 3 of this preamble. 

 

7

 Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter 

in the U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274. 
Page 71 of 197 

Table 3. Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Proposed 

Amendments to the NESHAP for Stationary CI and SI Engines 

(millions of 2010 dollars)a

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons per 

year) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(3 percent 

Discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7 percent 

Discount) 

Stationary CI Engines 

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

2,818 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Stationary SI Engines 

NOx 9,648 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 a

 All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded 

to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do 

not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or 

visibility impairment. 

b

 PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to 

Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2013 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order 

to meet these rules. To estimate human health co-benefits of 

these rules, the EPA used benefit-per-ton factors to quantify 

the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and monetized 

benefits based on changes in directly emitted PM2.5 and NOx 

emissions. These benefit-per-ton factors were derived using the 

general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and 
Page 72 of 197 

Hubbell (2009).8

 This approach uses a model to convert emissions 

of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes in human health associated 

with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 

emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

However, for these rules, we utilized source apportionment air 

quality modeling of emissions in the “Non-EGU Point other” 

category because we do not have modeling specifically for 

stationary engines.9

 We apply these national benefit-per-ton 

estimates calculated for this sector separately for directly 

emitted PM2.5 and NOx and multiply them by the corresponding 

emission reductions. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are 

generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors. More 

information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-ton 

estimates for this category is available in the technical 

support document, which is available in the docket. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

 

8

 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of 

location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 

health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health (2009) 2:169–176. 

9

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Technical support 

document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5

precursors from other point sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 
Page 73 of 197 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. The main PM2.5 precursors affected by these rules 

are directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX. Even though we assume that all 

fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit-perton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive 

population exposure. For example, directly emitted PM2.5 has a 

lower benefit-per-ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does 

not form as much PM2.5; thus, the exposure would be lower, and 

the monetized health benefits would be lower. 

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based 

both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments 

elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the 

uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and 

premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one 

based on the American Cancer Society cohort study10 and the 

 

10 Pope, et al., 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, 

and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 
Page 74 of 197 

extended Six Cities cohort study.11 In the RIA for this proposed 

amendments rule, which is available in the docket, we also 

include benefits estimates derived from the expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

The EPA strives to use the best available science to 

support our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation 

of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 

model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with 

reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this finding, we have 

conformed the previous threshold sensitivity analysis to the 

current state of the PM science by incorporating a new “Lowest 

Measured Level” (LML) assessment in the RIA accompanying these 

rules. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the 

level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, the 

EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to 

quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related co-benefits for these 

rules would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are 

 

11 Laden, et al., 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and 

Critical Care Medicine 173: 667-672. 
Page 75 of 197 

not available due to time or resource limitations, and thus, we 

are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each 

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the Pope, 

et al. (2002) study, 77 percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3

). Using the Laden, et al. (2006) study, 25 

percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

. 

It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in 

PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort 

studies. This fact is important, because, as we model avoided 

premature deaths among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we 

have lower confidence in levels below the LML for each study. 

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 

benefit analysis for these rules provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 
Page 76 of 197 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) RIA 

because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for these rules, and using a 

benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source of 

uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis12 provides an indication of the sensitivity of 

our results to various assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOx, ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for these 

proposed amendments, we include a qualitative assessment of 

these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendments. 

 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Proposed 

amendments Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 

Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 
Page 77 of 197 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is available in 

the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts?

The EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a result of these proposed 

amendments. 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its 

final decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects 

of this proposed rule from all interested parties. Whenever 

applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should be 

submitted to allow the EPA to make maximum use of the comments. 

The agency invites all parties to coordinate their data 

collection activities with the EPA to facilitate mutually 

beneficial and cost-effective data submissions. A 

redline/strikeout version of the complete NESHAP for stationary 

RICE, which shows the changes that are being proposed in this 

action, is available from the rulemaking docket. 

 The EPA is seeking specific comment on the proposal to 

temporarily allow stationary emergency engines located at area 

sources to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently allowed 

under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards any type 
Page 78 of 197 

of non-emergency operation, including peak shaving and nonemergency demand response if the peak shaving is done as part of 

a peak shaving (load management) program with the local 

distribution system operator. The EPA is proposing that the 

allowance be removed after April 16, 2017. 

The EPA recognizes that the electricity grid achieves 

demand response and grid stability with and without the use of 

emergency stationary RICE. Alternative approaches include 

reductions or shifts in energy use, electricity storage, 

distribution automation, microgrids, natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines, and grid-connected distributed generation, 

including non-emergency engines and combined heat and power. 

Many of these approaches can provide additional benefits, such 

as additional energy efficiency, lower costs, shorter 

electricity outage times, and better integration of renewable 

energy generation into the electricity grid. Several studies 

project a significant future potential for using less energy in 

homes, buildings, and industry during times of peak electricity 

demand. The EPA seeks comment on how these investments may 

affect the number of hours which emergency stationary RICE are 

needed in the future to address electricity peak shaving and 

grid stability. 

 The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on the 

proposed criteria for expanding the current definition of remote 
Page 79 of 197 

areas of Alaska beyond areas that are not accessible by the 

FAHS. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposed system 

capacity limitation of 12 megawatts and the alternative 500 hour 

cap on annual usage (based on a 10-year rolling average) are the 

appropriate criteria for distinguishing the areas of Alaska 

that, while accessible by the FAHS, have the same unique 

challenges as the areas that are not accessible by the FAHS. 

The EPA is also seeking information related to irrigation 

pump engine sizes. During the 2010 rulemaking, the EPA relied 

upon several sources to determine the potential number of 

irrigation engines that may be impacted by the rule. Using these 

sources, the EPA estimated that the vast majority of the 

existing irrigation engines were less than or equal to 300 HP. 

The EPA received several comments confirming this estimation. 

The EPA seeks comprehensive, nationwide information on the size 

of existing irrigation engines to either confirm or refute our 

understanding of existing irrigation engine sizes; this 

information will assist EPA in assessing the impacts of the 2010 

rule on existing irrigation engines. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review
Page 80 of 197 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the 

EPA prepared a RIA of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits, compliance costs and 

net benefits for the proposed amendments to the stationary CI 

engines NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is 

in Table 4 of this preamble. The summary for stationary SI 

engines is included in Table 5 of this preamble. 

Table 4. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary CI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance 

Costsc $373 $373 

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

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 
Page 81 of 197 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

Table 5. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary SI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance 

Costsc $115 $115 

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 
Page 82 of 197 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

For more information on the cost-benefit analysis, please 

refer to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection 

burden. This action does not impose an information collection 

burden because the agency is not requiring any additional 

recordkeeping, reporting, notification or other requirements in 

these proposed amendments. The changes being proposed in this 

action do not affect information collection, but include 

revisions to emission standards and other minor issues. However, 

the OMB has previously approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing regulations under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0548. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 
Page 83 of 197 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. The companies owning facilities with affected RICE can be 

grouped into small and large categories using SBA general size 

standard definitions. Size standards are based on industry 

classification codes (i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that each company uses to 

identify the industry or industries in which they operate. The 

SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment, 

annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for 

electricity generating units—EGUs) of the owning entity. These 

thresholds vary by industry and are evaluated based on the 

primary industry classification of the affected companies. In 

cases where companies are classified by multiple NAICS codes, 
Page 84 of 197 

the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the NAICS code with 

the highest employee or revenue size standard) was used. 

As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across 

several industries use affected CI and SI stationary RICE; 

therefore, a number of size standards are utilized in this 

analysis. For the 15 industries identified at the 6-digit NAICS 

code represented in this analysis, the employment size standard 

(where it applies) varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The 

annual sales standard (where it applies) is as low as 0.75 

million dollars and as high as 33.5 million dollars. In 

addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as 

having a total electric output of 4 million megawatt-hours (MWhr) in the previous fiscal year. The specific SBA size standard 

is identified for each affected industry within the industry 

profile to support this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of 

this action to all affected small entities across all industries 

affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of 

their sales is less than 2 percent according to the small entity 
Page 85 of 197 

analysis. We conclude that there is no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities for this rule. 

For more information on the small entity impacts associated 

with the rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small 

Business Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be 

found in the RIA for each of the rules affected by this action. 

Although the proposed reconsideration rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule 

on small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA 

took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small 

entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options and 

the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and 

reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, 

EPA proposes to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of 

area sources affected under each of the RICE rules with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, 
Page 86 of 197 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. The EPA is proposing management practices for 

certain existing engines located at area sources and is 

proposing amendments that will provide owners and operators with 

alternative and less expensive compliance demonstration methods. 

As a result of these proposed changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden associated with this 

rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The changes being proposed in this action by the 

agency will mostly affect stationary engine owners and operators 

and will not affect small governments. The proposed amendments 

will lead to a reduction in the cost burden. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. This proposed action primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant economic costs on state or local 
Page 87 of 197 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA 

and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
Page 88 of 197 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 

technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action reduces the 

burden of the rule on owners and operators of stationary engines 

by providing less burdensome compliance demonstration methods to 

owners and operators and greater flexibility in the operation of 

emergency engines. As a result of these proposed changes, the 

EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 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 
Page 89 of 197 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

 This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. While the agency identified two voluntary consensus standards 

as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use it in 

this rulemaking. The two candidate voluntary consensus 

standards, ISO 14965:2000(E) and EN 12619 (1999), identified 

would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The search and review results have been 

documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. 

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
Page 90 of 197 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. 

 The EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to determine 

whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the reconsideration of this final 

rule, as the EPA does not have specific information about the 

location of the stationary RICE affected by this rule. Although 

the EPA does not have specific engine location information, to 

the extent this rule achieves fewer reductions than the original 

rule, the decrease in reductions is primarily occurring in very 

remote areas that are sparsely populated. 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Page 91 of 197 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 60 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

40 CFR part 63 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 92 of 197

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart IIII—[amended]

1. Section 60.4207 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4207 What fuel requirements must I meet if I am an owner or 

operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine subject 

to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 (b) Beginning October 1, 2010, owners and operators of 

stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart with a displacement of 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that use diesel fuel must use 

diesel fuel that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel, except that any existing diesel fuel 

purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior to October 1, 2010, may 

be used until depleted. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 60.4211 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 
Page 93 of 197

§60.4211 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 
Page 94 of 197

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (f)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 
Page 95 of 197

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 3. Section 60.4219 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4219 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4211(f) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 
Page 96 of 197

requirements specified in §60.4211(f), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4211(f). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4211(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJJ—[amended]

4. Section 60.4231 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§60.4231 What emission standards must I meet if I am a 

manufacturer of stationary SI internal combustion engines or 

equipment containing such engines?
Page 97 of 197

* * * * * 

(b) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2), or manufactured on or after 

the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary 

ICE with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 

HP that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

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

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II engines, and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) that use gasoline 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 98 of 197

(c) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are 

manufactured on or after the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2) , 

or manufactured on or after the applicable date in 

§60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, to the 

certification emission standards and other requirements for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI internal 

combustion engine manufacturers must certify their emergency 

stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP that 

are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are manufactured on 

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

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, and other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 

CFR part 90. Stationary SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total 

displacement less than or equal to 1,000 cc that are rich burn 

engines that use LPG to the certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 99 of 197

(d) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

who choose to certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 75 KW (100 

HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use LPG and 

emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) under the voluntary 

manufacturer certification program described in this subpart 

must certify those engines to the certification emission 

standards for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers who 

choose to certify their emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP (except gasoline and rich burn 

engines that use LPG), must certify those engines to the Phase 1 

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cc (except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use LPG) to the certification emission standards for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. For stationary SI ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 

75 KW (100 HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use 

LPG and emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power 
Page 100 of 197

greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2011, manufacturers may choose to certify these 

engines to the standards in Table 1 to this subpart applicable 

to engines with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 

100 HP and less than 500 HP. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.4243 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4243 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary SI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(d) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 
Page 101 of 197

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (d)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(d)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 
Page 102 of 197

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 6. Section 60.4248 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4248 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Page 103 of 197

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4243(d). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4243(d)(2)(ii) or (iii). 
Page 104 of 197

* * * * * 

7. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 –- Requirements for 

Performance Tests 

As stated in §60.4244, you must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests within 10 percent of 100 

percent peak (or the highest achievable) load: 

For each Complying 

with the 

requirement 

to 

You must Using According 

to the 

following 

requirement

s 

1. 

Stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

demonstrati

ng 

compliance 

according 

to 

§60.4244. 

a. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of NOx

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for NOx

concentrati

on. 
Page 105 of 197

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for NOx 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

NOx at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

7E of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 
Page 106 of 197

b. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of CO in 

the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for CO 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 
Page 107 of 197

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for CO 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

CO at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

ASTM Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

c. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of VOC 

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A.

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 
Page 108 of 197

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005) a. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for VOC 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for VOC 

concentrati

on. 
Page 109 of 197

v. Measure 

VOC at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) 

Methods 25A 

and 18 of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 25A 

with the 

use of a 

methane 

cutter as 

described 

in 40 CFR 

1065.265, 

Method 18 

or 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

Ac,d, Method 

320 of 40 

CFR part 

63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

a

 ASTM D6522-00 is incorporated by reference; see 40 CFR 60.17. 

Also, you may petition the Administrator for approval to use 

alternative methods for portable analyzer. 

b

 You may use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, 

for measuring the O2 content of the exhaust gas as an alternative 

to EPA Method 3B. 

c

 You may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

provided that you conduct an adequate presurvey test prior to 

the emissions test, such as the one described in OTM 11 on EPA’s 

website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm11.pdf). d

 You may use ASTM D6420-99 (2004), Test Method for Determination 

of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry as an alternative to EPA Method 

18 for measuring total nonmethane organic. 

PART 63--[AMENDED]
Page 110 of 197

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart ZZZZ--[amended] 

9. Section 63.6585 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * * 

(f) The emergency stationary RICE listed in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (3) of this section are not subject to this 

subpart. The stationary RICE must meet the definition of an 

emergency stationary RICE in §63.6675, which includes operating 

according to the provisions specified in §63.6640(f). 

(1) Existing residential emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(2) Existing commercial emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(3) Existing institutional emergency stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP emissions. 

10. Section 63.6590 is amended by removing paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) through (viii). 

11. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Page 111 of 197

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations and other requirements no 

later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 

500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an 

existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements no 

later than May 3, 2013. If you have an existing stationary SI 

RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an existing 

stationary SI RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, 

you must comply with the applicable emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other requirements no later than 

October 19, 2013. 

* * * * * 

 12. Section 63.6602 is revised to read as follows: 
Page 112 of 197

§63.6602 What emission limitations and other requirements must 

I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions?

If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission 

limitations and other requirements in Table 2c to this subpart 

which apply to you. Compliance with the numerical emission 

limitations established in this subpart is based on the results 

of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the testing 

requirements and procedures in §63.6620 and Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

13. Section 63.6603 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (b); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6603 What emission limitations, operating limitations, and 

other requirements must I meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?

* * * * * 

 (b) If you own or operate an existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP that meets either paragraph (b)(1) or 
Page 113 of 197

(b)(2) of this section, you do not have to meet the numerical CO 

emission limitations specified in Table 2d of this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP that meet 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section must meet the 

management practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency 

CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in 

Table 2d of this subpart. 

 (1) The area source is located in an area of Alaska that is 

not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). 

 (2) The stationary RICE is located at an area source that 

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

section. 

 (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid. 

 (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes. 

 (iii) The generating capacity of the area source is less 

than 12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively 
Page 114 of 197

for backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 

hrs per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

 (c) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and that is 

subject to an enforceable state or local standard that requires 

the engine to be replaced no later than June 1, 2018, you may 

until May 3, 2015, choose to comply with the management 

practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d 

of this subpart instead of the applicable emission limitations 

in Table 2d, operating limitations in Table 2b, and crankcase 

ventilation system requirements in §63.6625(g). After May 3, 

2015, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 2d 

and operating limitations in Table 2b that apply for nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. After May 3, 2015, you must 

also comply with the crankcase ventilation system requirements 

in §63.6625(g). 

 (d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 3 (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 
Page 115 of 197

89.112, you may comply with the requirements under this part by 

meeting the requirements for Tier 3 engines (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) in 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII instead of the 

emission limitations and other requirements that would otherwise 

apply under this part for existing non-emergency CI RICE with a 

site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

 (e) An existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP must meet the definition of remote stationary 

RICE in §63.6675 on the initial compliance date for the engine, 

October 19, 2013, in order to be considered a remote stationary 

RICE under this subpart. Owners and operators of existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that meet the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in §63.6675 of this subpart 

as of October 19, 2013 must evaluate the status of their 

stationary RICE every 12 months. Owners and operators must keep 

records of the initial and annual evaluation of the status of 

the engine. If the evaluation indicates that the stationary RICE 

no longer meets the definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§63.6675 of this subpart, the owner or operator must comply with 

all of the requirements for existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP 
Page 116 of 197

located at area sources of HAP that are not remote stationary 

RICE within one year of the evaluation. 

 14. Section 63.6604 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.6604 What fuel requirements must I meet if I own or operate 

an existing stationary CI RICE?

If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 300 

brake HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder 

that uses diesel fuel, you must use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

Existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE located in Guam, 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, or at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) are exempt from the 

requirements of this section. 

15. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

 (a) You must be in compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in 

this subpart that apply to you at all times. 

* * * * * 
Page 117 of 197

16. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I 

use?

* * * * * 

(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this 

subpart. If you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE 

that is subject to performance testing, you do not need to start 

up the engine solely to conduct the performance test. Owners and 

operators of a non-operational engine can conduct the 

performance test when the engine is started up again. The test 

must be conducted at any load condition within plus or minus 10 

percent of 100 percent load for the stationary RICE listed in 

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

(1) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

(2) New non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than or equal to 250 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(3) New non-emergency 2SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions. 
Page 118 of 197

(4) New non-emergency CI stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

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

determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement: 

Where: 

Ci = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device inlet, 

Co = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device outlet, and 

R = percent reduction of CO, THC, or formaldehyde 

emissions. 

(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO), total 

hydrocarbons (THC), or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device to a dry basis and to 15 

percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide (CO2). If 

pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15 percent 

oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of oxygen 

concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is needed. 

Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

Ci-Co

Ci x 100 = R (Eq. 1) 
Page 119 of 197

(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel 

burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, 

Section 5.2, and the following equation: 

Where: 

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the 

ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero 

percent excess air. 

0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100. 

 Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu). 

Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu) 

(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting 

measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows: 

Where: 

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent. 

5.9 = 20.9 percent O2 - 15 percent O2, the defined O2

correction value, percent. 

(iii) Calculate the CO, THC, and formaldehyde gas 

concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using CO2 as follows: 

Fo = 

0.209 Fd

Fc (Eq. 2) 

XCO2 = 5.9

Fo (Eq. 3) 

Cadj = Cd

XCO2

%CO2

 (Eq. 4) 
Page 120 of 197

Where: 

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry basis, percent. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.6625 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b); 

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

d. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, collection, 

operation, and maintenance requirements?

 (a) If you elect to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 

of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS 

to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

If you are meeting a requirement to reduce CO emissions, the 

CEMS must be installed at both the inlet and outlet of the 

control device. If you are meeting a requirement to limit the 

concentration of CO, the CEMS must be installed at the outlet of 

the control device. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this 

subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 
Page 121 of 197

according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (6) An existing non-emergency, non-black start stationary 

RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions which combusts 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; 

* * * * * 

 (g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI engine greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not 

equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system, you must 

comply with either paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. Owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s 

specified maintenance requirements for operating and maintaining 

the open or closed crankcase ventilation systems and replacing 

the crankcase filters, or can request the Administrator to 

approve different maintenance requirements that are as 

protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines 

located at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) do not have to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. 
Page 122 of 197

 (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that 

prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted to the 

atmosphere, or 

 (2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control 

system that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering 

the exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates and metals. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.6630 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Adding paragraph (d); and 

d. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

 (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirement 

that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (d) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 

requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or 

more can demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde 

emission limit by testing for THC instead of formaldehyde. The 

testing must be conducted according to the requirements in Table 
Page 123 of 197

4 of this subpart. The average reduction of emissions of THC 

determined from the performance test must be equal to or greater 

than 30 percent. 

(e) The initial compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

three test runs. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
Page 124 of 197

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

19. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

a. Amending the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

d. Revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other 

requirements in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, 

and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according to 

methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (c) The annual compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 
Page 125 of 197

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

one test run. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 
Page 126 of 197

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

 (7) If the results of the annual compliance demonstration 

show that the emissions exceed the levels specified in Table 6 

of this subpart, the stationary RICE must be shut down as soon 

as safely possible, and appropriate corrective action must be 

taken (e.g., repairs, catalyst cleaning, catalyst replacement). 

The stationary RICE must be retested within 7 days of being 

restarted and the emissions must meet the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. If the retest shows that the emissions 

continue to exceed the specified levels, the stationary RICE 

must again be shut down as soon as safely possible, and the 

stationary RICE may not operate, except for purposes of startup 

and testing, until the owner/operator demonstrates through 

testing that the emissions do not exceed the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary RICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary RICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

RICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 
Page 127 of 197

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary RICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 
Page 128 of 197

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency RICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

emergency demand response for periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert 

Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity 

and Energy Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary RICE located at major sources of 

HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in nonemergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar 

year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response 

provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per 

year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak 

shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income 
Page 129 of 197

for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another 

entity. 

 (4) Existing emergency stationary RICE located at area 

sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in 

non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours 

per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency 

demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

 (i) Prior to April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for nonemergency situations can be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response to generate income for a facility, or 

to otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement 

with another entity if engines is operated as part of a peak 

shaving (load management program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is provided only to the facility 

itself or to support the local distribution system. 

 (ii) On or after April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part 

of a financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 20. Section 63.6645 is amended by adding a new paragraph 

(i) to read as follows: 
Page 130 of 197

§63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * * 

 (i) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and subject to an 

enforceable state or local standard requiring engine replacement 

and you intend to meet management practices rather than emission 

limits, as specified in §63.6603(c), you must submit a 

notification by March 3, 2013, stating that you intend to use 

the provision in §63.6603(c) and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

21. Section 63.6675 is amended by: 

 a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Alaska 

Railbelt Grid;

b. Revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE; 

and 

c. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Remote

stationary RICE to read as follows. 

§63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

 Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six 

regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to 

Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden 

Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; 
Page 131 of 197

Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward 

Electric System. 

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets all of the 

criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition. All 

emergency stationary RICE must comply with the requirements 

specified in §63.6640(f) in order to be considered emergency 

stationary RICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

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

to be an emergency stationary RICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary RICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary RICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump 

water in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary RICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §63.6640(f). 
Page 132 of 197

 (3) The stationary RICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§63.6640(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) and §63.6640(f)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Remote stationary RICE means stationary RICE meeting any of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Stationary RICE located in an offshore area that is 

beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the 

coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the 

open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of 

inland waters. 

 (2) Stationary RICE located on a pipeline segment that 

meets both of the criteria in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this 

definition. 

(i) A pipeline segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended 

for human occupancy within 220 yards (200 meters) on either side 

of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) 

length of pipeline. Each separate dwelling unit in a multiple 

dwelling unit building is counted as a separate building 

intended for human occupancy. 

(ii) The pipeline segment does not lie within 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside 

area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or 
Page 133 of 197

other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. The days and weeks need not be consecutive. The building 

or area is considered occupied for a full day if it is occupied 

for any portion of the day. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (2), the term pipeline 

segment means all parts of those physical facilities through 

which gas moves in transportation, including but not limited to 

pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attached to pipe, 

compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, 

delivery stations, holders, and fabricated assemblies. 

Stationary RICE located within 50 yards (46 m) of the pipeline 

segment providing power for equipment on a pipeline segment are 

part of the pipeline segment. Transportation of gas means the 

gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or 

the storage of gas. A building is intended for human occupancy 

if its primary use is for a purpose involving the presence of 

humans. 

(3) Stationary RICE that are not located on pipelines and 

that have 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy 

within a 0.25 mile radius around the engine. 

* * * * * 

 22. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 
Page 134 of 197

Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

Existing, New, and Reconstructed SI 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6603, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must 

comply with the following operating limitations for existing, 

new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 

1. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and using NSCR; 

 

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 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 750°F and less than or 

equal to 1250°F.1
Page 135 of 197

2. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and not using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and not using NSCR. 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 23. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

New and Reconstructed 2SLB and CI Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, New and 

Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a Major 

Source of HAP Emissions, Existing CI Stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and Existing 4SLB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located at an Area 

Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6603, 63.6630, and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following operating limitations for new 

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

a major source of HAP emissions; new and reconstructed 4SLB 

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

emissions; and existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP:

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 
Page 136 of 197

1. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and using an 

oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water at 

100 percent load plus or minus 

10 percent from the pressure 

drop across the catalyst that 

was measured during the initial 

performance test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1

2. Existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and 

using an oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water 

from the pressure drop across 

the catalyst that was measured 

during the initial performance 

test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1
Page 137 of 197

3. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and not 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and not using an 

oxidation catalyst 

and 

existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not 

using an oxidation catalyst 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 24. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a Major Source 

of HAP Emissions and Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 
Page 138 of 197

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6602, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following requirements for existing compression 

ignition stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP 

emissions and existing spark ignition stationary RICE ≤500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following requirement, 

except during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Emergency 

stationary CI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

CI RICE.1

 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

Minimize the 

engine’s time spent 

at idle and minimize 

the engine’s startup 

time at startup to a 

period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the 

engine, not to 

exceed 30 minutes, 

after which time the 

non-startup emission 

limitations apply.3

 

2. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE <100 HP. 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

3. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

100<HP<300 HP. 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 230 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. 
Page 139 of 197

4. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 49 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

5. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 23 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

6. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

SI RICE.1

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

7. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP 

that are not 

2SLB stationary 

RICE. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 1,440 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3
Page 140 of 197

8. NonEmergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 4,320 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

9. Nonemergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 225 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

10. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 47 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

11. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust 

to 10.3 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2

12. Nonemergency, nonblack start 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 which 

combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 177 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

work practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c 

of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the 
Page 141 of 197

required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law, the work practice can be 

delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law has abated. The work practice 

should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency 

has ended or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or 

local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform 

the work practice on the schedule required and the federal, 

state or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.

2

Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart. 

3 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

 25. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6603 and 63.6640, you must comply with the 

following requirements for existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following 

requirement, except 

during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

<300 HP 

 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

Minimize the engine’s 

time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s 

startup time at startup 

to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the engine, 

not to exceed 30 

minutes, after which 

time the non-startup 

emission limitations 

apply. 
Page 142 of 197

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

2. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more. 

3. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more.

4. Emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

and black start 

stationary CI 

RICE2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 143 of 197

5. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE; black start 

stationary SI 

RICE; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year; 

non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

6. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

2SLB stationary 

RICE 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 4,320 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 144 of 197

7. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

8. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

to reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 145 of 197

9. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

10. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install NSCR to 

reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 146 of 197

11. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

stationary RICE 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 1 Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart. 

2 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

management practice requirements on the schedule required in 

Table 2d of this subpart, or if performing the management 

practice on the required schedule would otherwise pose an 

unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the 

management practice can be delayed until the emergency is over 

or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law has 

abated. The management practice should be performed as soon as 

practicable after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable 

risk under federal, state, or local law has abated. Sources must 

report any failure to perform the management practice on the 

schedule required and the federal, state or local law under 

which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 

 26. 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: 
Page 147 of 197

For each... Complying with the 

requirement to... 

You must...

1. New or 

reconstructed 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources; new 

or reconstructed 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP 

located at major 

sources; and new 

or reconstructed 

CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources. 

Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

2. 4SRB stationary 

RICE ≥5,000 HP 

located at major 

sources. 

Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

3. Stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources and 

new or 

reconstructed 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at major sources. 

Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in 

the stationary 

RICE exhaust 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

4. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

3 years, whichever 

comes first. 

5. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

5 years, whichever 

comes first. 

1 After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 
Page 148 of 197

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

 27. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

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) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

(incorpo

rated by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14). 

(a) 

Measurements 

to determine 

O2 must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for CO 

concentration. 

ii. 

Measure 

the CO at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) ASTM 

D6522-00 

(2005)a,b

(incorpo

ra-ted 

by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14) 

(a) The CO 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 
Page 149 of 197

or 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A. 

2. 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE 

a. reduce 

formaldehyd

e 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 

concentratio

n must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 
Page 150 of 197

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

content 

at the 

inlet and 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device; 

and 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 

iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the 

formaldeh

yde 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

formaldehyde at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), 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. 
Page 151 of 197

 iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the THC 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

THC at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

25A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

(a) THC 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

3. 

Stationary 

RICE 

a. limit 

the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the 

stationary 

RICE 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

and 

(1) 

Method 1 

or 1A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

§63.7(d)

(1)(i) 

(a) if using 

a control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must be 

located at 

the outlet 

of the 

control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentra

tion of 

the 

stationar

y RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(1) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)

. 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

O2 concentration must be 

made at the 

same time 

and location 

as the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentration. 

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 
Page 152 of 197

content 

of the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentratio

n. 

iv. 

Measure 

formaldehyde at 

the 

exhaust 

of the 

stationary RICE; 

or 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), the 

percent 

R must 

be 

greater 

than or 

equal to 

70 and 

less 

than or 

equal to 

130. 

(a) 

Formaldehyde 

concentratio

n 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 

(1) 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

(a) CO 

concentratio

n must be at 

15 percent 
Page 153 of 197

of the 

stationary RICE. 

60, 

appendix 

A, ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

, 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03. 

O2, dry 

basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

a

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) from at least one 

of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-

2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb 

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to 

test both CI and SI stationary RICE. 

b

You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. 

c

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the 

following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or 

University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48106. 

 28. 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 . . . 
Page 154 of 197

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and using 

oxidation catalyst, 

and using a CPMS 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 155 of 197

2. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, using oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test.

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 
Page 156 of 197

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

4. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and not using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 157 of 197

5. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, and 

using a CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

both the inlet and 

outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

reduction of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 equals or 

exceeds the 

required percent 

reduction. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance 

is based on the 

average percent 

reduction achieved 

during the 4-hour 

period. 
Page 158 of 197

6. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and using a 

CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

the outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

concentration of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 is less 

than or equal to 

the CO emission 

limitation. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance is 

based on the 

average 

concentration 

measured during the 

4-hour period. 

7. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 
Page 159 of 197

percent reduction, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than 30 

percent; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

8. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction; 

and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 
Page 160 of 197

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

9. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. The average 

formaldehyde 

concentration, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

10. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

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 
Page 161 of 197

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

11. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions. 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable, percent 

reduction. 

12. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust. 

i. The average 

formaldehyde or CO 

concentration, as 

applicable, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

or CO emission 

limitation, as 

applicable. 

13. Existing nonemergency 4SLB a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. You have 

conducted an 
Page 162 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

 initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350°F. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. You have 

conducted an 

initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 
Page 163 of 197

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250°F. 

 29. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations, Work Practices, and 

Management Practices 

As stated in §63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations and work or management 

practices as required by the following: 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . 

. 

You must 

demonstrate 

continuous 

compliance by 

. . . 

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

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 achieveda

; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 164 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

2. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for CO to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO 

percent reduction 

is achieveda

; 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 
Page 165 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

a CEMS 

i. Collecting the 

monitoring data 

according to 

§63.6625(a), 

reducing the 

measurements to 1-

hour averages, 

calculating the 

percent reduction 

or concentration of 

CO emissions 

according to 

§63.6620; and 

ii. Demonstrating 

that the catalyst 

achieves the 

required percent 

reduction of CO 

emissions over the 

4-hour averaging 

period, or that the 

emission remain at 

or below the CO 

concentration 

limit; and 

iii. Conducting an 

annual RATA of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, as 

well as daily and 

periodic data 

quality checks in 

accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix F, 
Page 166 of 197

procedure 1. 

4. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

5. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 
Page 167 of 197

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

6. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE with a brake 

HP ≥5,000 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

the required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction 

is achieved, or to 

demonstrate that 

the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

performance test is 

equal to or greater 

than 30 percent.a

7. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 168 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

8. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 169 of 197

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

9. Existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

<100 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

≤300 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary SI RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis, existing 

non-emergency 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

a. Work or 

Management 

practices. 

i. Operating and 

maintaining the 

stationary RICE 

according to the 

manufacturer’s 

emission-related 

operation and 

maintenance 

instructions; 

or 

ii. Develop and 

follow your own 

maintenance plan 

which must provide 

to the extent 

practicable for the 

maintenance and 

operation of the 

engine in a manner 

consistent with 

good air pollution 

control practice 

for minimizing 

emissions. 
Page 170 of 197

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year, and 

existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

are remote 

stationary RICE. 

10. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 171 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

11. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 172 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

12. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 173 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

13. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 174 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2; and 

either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 
Page 175 of 197

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350° F. 

15. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more;

and either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250° F. 
Page 176 of 197

a

After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

30. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports 

As stated in §63.6650, you must comply with the following 

requirements for reports: 

For each . . 

. 

You must 

submit a . . 

. 

The report must 

contain . . . 

You must submit 

the report . . . 

1. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary 

RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency 

4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

Compliance 

report 

a. If there are 

no deviations 

from any 

emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations that 

apply to you, a 

statement that 

there were no 

deviations from 

the emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations 

during the 

reporting 

period. If there 

were no periods 

during which the 

CMS, including 

CEMS and CPMS, 

was out-ofcontrol, as 

specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), a 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) for engines 

that are not 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations; and 

ii. Annually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(6)-

(9) for engines 

that are limited 

use stationary 

RICE subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations. 
Page 177 of 197

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >300 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP; new 

or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; and 

new or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

4SLB 

stationary 

RICE 

250≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP 

statement that 

there were not 

periods during 

which the CMS 

was out-ofcontrol during 

the reporting 

period; or 

b. If you had a 

deviation from 

any emission 

limitation or 

operating 

limitation 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(d). If 

there were 

periods during 

which the CMS, 

including CEMS 

and CPMS, was 

out-of-control, 

as specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), the 

information in 

§63.6650(e); or 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

c. If you had a 

malfunction 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(c)(4). 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

2. New or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE that 

combusts 

landfill gas 

or digester 

gas 

equivalent to 

Report a. The fuel flow 

rate of each 

fuel and the 

heating values 

that were used 

in your 

calculations, 

and you must 

demonstrate that 

the percentage 

i. Annually, 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650. 
Page 178 of 197

10 percent or 

more of the 

gross heat 

input on an 

annual basis 

of heat input 

provided by 

landfill gas or 

digester gas, is 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis; 

and 

b. The operating 

limits provided 

in your 

federally 

enforceable 

permit, and any 

deviations from 

these limits; 

and 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

c. Any problems 

or errors 

suspected with 

the meters. 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

3. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP that 

are not 

remote 

stationary 

RICE and that 

operate more 

than 24 hours 

per calendar 

year 

Compliance 

report 

a. The results 

of the annual 

compliance 

demonstration, 

if conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period. 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) 

 31. Appendix A to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is added to read 

as follows: 
Page 179 of 197

Appendix A 

Protocol for Using an Electrochemical Analyzer to Determine 

Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Certain Engines 

1.0 Scope and Application. What is this Protocol? 

This protocol is a procedure for using portable electrochemical 

(EC) cells for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) 

concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled emissions from 

existing stationary 4-stroke lean burn and 4-stroke rich burn 

reciprocating internal combustion engines as specified in the 

applicable rule. 

1.1 Analytes. What does this protocol determine? 

This protocol measures the engine exhaust gas concentrations of 

carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). 

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity

Carbon monoxide (CO) 630-08-0 Minimum detectable 

limit should be 2 

percent of the 

nominal range or 1 

ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

Oxygen (O2) 7782-44-7 

1.2 Applicability. When is this protocol acceptable? 

This protocol is applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Because of inherent cross sensitivities of EC cells, you must 

not apply this protocol to other emissions sources without 

specific instruction to that effect. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. How good must my collected data be? 
Page 180 of 197

Refer to Section 13 to verify and document acceptable analyzer 

performance. 

1.4 Range. What is the targeted analytical range for this 

protocol? 

The measurement system and EC cell design(s) conforming to this 

protocol will determine the analytical range for each gas 

component. The nominal ranges are defined by choosing up-scale 

calibration gas concentrations near the maximum anticipated flue 

gas concentrations for CO and O2, or no more than twice the 

permitted CO level. 

1.5 Sensitivity. What minimum detectable limit will this 

protocol yield for a particular gas component? 

The minimum detectable limit depends on the nominal range and 

resolution of the specific EC cell used, and the signal to noise 

ratio of the measurement system. The minimum detectable limit 

should be 2 percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

2.0 Summary of Protocol 

In this protocol, a gas sample is extracted from an engine 

exhaust system and then conveyed to a portable EC analyzer for 

measurement of CO and O2 gas concentrations. This method provides 

measurement system performance specifications and sampling 

protocols to ensure reliable data. You may use additions to, or 

modifications of vendor supplied measurement systems (e.g., 
Page 181 of 197

heated or unheated sample lines, thermocouples, flow meters, 

selective gas scrubbers, etc.) to meet the design specifications 

of this protocol. Do not make changes to the measurement system 

from the as-verified configuration (Section 3.12). 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Measurement System. The total equipment required for the 

measurement of CO and O2 concentrations. The measurement system 

consists of the following major subsystems: 

3.1.1 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or digital 

recorder for logging measurement data from the analyzer output. 

You may record measurement data from the digital data display 

manually or electronically.

3.1.2 Electrochemical (EC) Cell. A device, similar to a fuel 

cell, used to sense the presence of a specific analyte and 

generate an electrical current output proportional to the 

analyte concentration.

3.1.3 Interference Gas Scrubber. A device used to remove or 

neutralize chemical compounds that may interfere with the 

selective operation of an EC cell.

3.1.4 Moisture Removal System. Any device used to reduce the 

concentration of moisture in the sample stream so as to protect 

the EC cells from the damaging effects of condensation and to 

minimize errors in measurements caused by the scrubbing of 

soluble gases.
Page 182 of 197

3.1.5 Sample Interface. The portion of the system used for one 

or more of the following: sample acquisition; sample transport; 

sample conditioning or protection of the EC cell from any 

degrading effects of the engine exhaust effluent; removal of 

particulate matter and condensed moisture. 

3.2 Nominal Range. The range of analyte concentrations over 

which each EC cell is operated (normally 25 percent to 150 

percent of up-scale calibration gas value). Several nominal 

ranges can be used for any given cell so long as the calibration 

and repeatability checks for that range remain within 

specifications. 

3.3 Calibration Gas. A vendor certified concentration of a 

specific analyte in an appropriate balance gas. 

3.4 Zero Calibration Error. The analyte concentration output 

exhibited by the EC cell in response to zero-level calibration 

gas. 

3.5 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference 

between the analyte concentration exhibited by the EC cell and 

the certified concentration of the up-scale calibration gas. 

3.6 Interference Check. A procedure for quantifying analytical 

interference from components in the engine exhaust gas other 

than the targeted analytes. 

3.7 Repeatability Check. A protocol for demonstrating that an EC 

cell operated over a given nominal analyte concentration range 
Page 183 of 197

provides a stable and consistent response and is not 

significantly affected by repeated exposure to that gas. 

3.8 Sample Flow Rate. The flow rate of the gas sample as it 

passes through the EC cell. In some situations, EC cells can 

experience drift with changes in flow rate. The flow rate must 

be monitored and documented during all phases of a sampling run. 

3.9 Sampling Run. A timed three-phase event whereby an EC cell’s 

response rises and plateaus in a sample conditioning phase, 

remains relatively constant during a measurement data phase, 

then declines during a refresh phase. The sample conditioning 

phase exposes the EC cell to the gas sample for a length of time 

sufficient to reach a constant response. The measurement data 

phase is the time interval during which gas sample measurements 

can be made that meet the acceptance criteria of this protocol. 

The refresh phase then purges the EC cells with CO-free air. The 

refresh phase replenishes requisite O2 and moisture in the 

electrolyte reserve and provides a mechanism to de-gas or desorb 

any interference gas scrubbers or filters so as to enable a 

stable CO EC cell response. There are four primary types of 

sampling runs: pre- sampling calibrations; stack gas sampling; 

post-sampling calibration checks; and measurement system 

repeatability checks. Stack gas sampling runs can be chained 

together for extended evaluations, providing all other 

procedural specifications are met. 
Page 184 of 197

3.10 Sampling Day. A time not to exceed twelve hours from the 

time of the pre-sampling calibration to the post-sampling 

calibration check. During this time, stack gas sampling runs can 

be repeated without repeated recalibrations, providing all other 

sampling specifications have been met. 

3.11 Pre-Sampling Calibration/Post-Sampling Calibration Check.

The protocols executed at the beginning and end of each sampling 

day to bracket measurement readings with controlled performance 

checks. 

3.12 Performance-Established Configuration. The EC cell and 

sampling system configuration that existed at the time that it 

initially met the performance requirements of this protocol. 

4.0 Interferences.

When present in sufficient concentrations, NO and NO2 are two gas 

species that have been reported to interfere with CO 

concentration measurements. In the likelihood of this 

occurrence, it is the protocol user’s responsibility to employ 

and properly maintain an appropriate CO EC cell filter or 

scrubber for removal of these gases, as described in Section 

6.2.12.

5.0 Safety. [Reserved]

6.0 Equipment and Supplies.

6.1 What equipment do I need for the measurement system? 
Page 185 of 197

The system must maintain the gas sample at conditions that will 

prevent moisture condensation in the sample transport lines, 

both before and as the sample gas contacts the EC cells. The 

essential components of the measurement system are described 

below. 

6.2 Measurement System Components. 

6.2.1 Sample Probe. A single extraction-point probe constructed 

of glass, stainless steel or other non-reactive material, and of 

length sufficient to reach any designated sampling point. The 

sample probe must be designed to prevent plugging due to 

condensation or particulate matter. 

6.2.2 Sample Line. Non-reactive tubing to transport the effluent 

from the sample probe to the EC cell. 

6.2.3 Calibration Assembly (optional). A three-way valve 

assembly or equivalent to introduce calibration gases at ambient 

pressure at the exit end of the sample probe during calibration 

checks. The assembly must be designed such that only stack gas 

or calibration gas flows in the sample line and all gases flow 

through any gas path filters. 

6.2.4 Particulate Filter (optional). Filters before the inlet of 

the EC cell to prevent accumulation of particulate material in 

the measurement system and extend the useful life of the 

components. All filters must be fabricated of materials that are 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 
Page 186 of 197

6.2.5 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump to provide undiluted sample 

gas to the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the 

response time of the measurement system. If located upstream of 

the EC cells, the pump must be constructed of a material that is 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.8 Sample Flow Rate Monitoring. An adjustable rotameter or 

equivalent device used to adjust and maintain the sample flow 

rate through the analyzer as prescribed. 

6.2.9 Sample Gas Manifold (optional). A manifold to divert a 

portion of the sample gas stream to the analyzer and the 

remainder to a by-pass discharge vent. The sample gas manifold 

may also include provisions for introducing calibration gases 

directly to the analyzer. The manifold must be constructed of a 

material that is non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.10 EC cell. A device containing one or more EC cells to 

determine the CO and O2 concentrations in the sample gas stream. 

The EC cell(s) must meet the applicable performance 

specifications of Section 13 of this protocol. 

6.2.11 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or 

digital recorder to make a record of analyzer output data. The 

data recorder resolution (i.e., readability) must be no greater 

than 1 ppm for CO; 0.1 percent for O2; and one degree (either o

C 

or o

F) for temperature. Alternatively, you may use a digital or 
Page 187 of 197

analog meter having the same resolution to observe and manually 

record the analyzer responses. 

6.2.12 Interference Gas Filter or Scrubber. A device to remove 

interfering compounds upstream of the CO EC cell. Specific 

interference gas filters or scrubbers used in the performanceestablished configuration of the analyzer must continue to be 

used. Such a filter or scrubber must have a means to determine 

when the removal agent is exhausted. Periodically replace or 

replenish it in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

6.2.13 EC Cell Temperature Device. A temperature measurement 

device (e.g., thermocouple, thermistor or equivalent) to monitor 

EC cell temperature. The temperature may be monitored within or 

at the surface of a cell, or in close proximity to the cells so 

as to indicate the operating temperature of the cells. Do not 

operate the analyzer outside the manufacturer’s recommended 

operating temperature range.

7.0 Reagents and Standards. What calibration gases are needed?

7.1 Calibration Gases. CO calibration gases for the EC cell must 

be CO in nitrogen or CO in a mixture of nitrogen and O2. Use CO 

calibration gases with labeled concentration values certified by 

the manufacturer to be within ± 5 percent of the label value. 

Dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) is acceptable for calibration 
Page 188 of 197

of the O2 cell. If needed, any lower percentage O2 calibration 

gas must be a mixture of O2 in nitrogen. 

7.1.1 Up-Scale CO Calibration Gas Concentration. 

Choose one or more up-scale gas concentrations such that the 

average of the stack gas measurements for each stack gas 

sampling run are between 25 and 150 percent of those 

concentrations. Alternatively, choose an up-scale gas that does 

not exceed twice the concentration of the applicable outlet 

standard. If a measured gas value exceeds 150 percent of the upscale CO calibration gas value at any time during the stack gas 

sampling run, the run must be discarded and repeated. 

7.1.2 Up-Scale O2 Calibration Gas Concentration.

Select an O2 gas concentration such that the difference between 

the gas concentration and the average stack gas measurement or 

reading for each sample run is less than 15 percent O2. When the 

average exhaust gas O2 readings are above 6 percent, you may use 

dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) for the up-scale O2 calibration 

gas.

7.1.3 Zero Gas. Use an inert gas that contains less than 0.25 

percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration. You 

may use dry air that is free from ambient CO and other 

combustion gas products (e.g., CO2).

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis

8.1 Selection of Sampling Sites. 
Page 189 of 197

8.1.1 Control Device Inlet. Select a sampling site sufficiently 

downstream of the engine so that the combustion gases should be 

well mixed. Use a single sampling extraction point near the 

center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent centroidal 

area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.1.2 Exhaust Gas Outlet. Select a sampling site located at 

least two stack diameters downstream of any disturbance (e.g., 

turbocharger exhaust, crossover junction or recirculation takeoff) and at least one-half stack diameter upstream of the gas 

discharge to the atmosphere. Use a single sampling extraction 

point near the center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent 

centroidal area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.2 Stack Gas Collection and Analysis. Prior to the first stack 

gas sampling run, conduct that the pre-sampling calibration in 

accordance with Section 10.1. Use Figure 1 to record all data. 

Zero the analyzer with zero gas. Confirm and record that the 

scrubber media color is correct and not exhausted. Then position 

the probe at the sampling point and begin the sampling run at 

the same flow rate used during the up-scale calibration. Record 

the start time. Record all EC cell output responses, the EC cell 

temperature, and the flow rate during the “sample conditioning 

phase” once per minute until constant readings are obtained. 

Then begin the “measurement data phase” and record readings 

every 15 seconds for at least two minutes (or eight readings), 
Page 190 of 197

or as otherwise required to achieve two continuous minutes of 

data that meet the specification given in Section 13.1. Finally, 

perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, free from CO 

and other combustion gases, until several minute-to-minute 

readings of consistent value have been obtained. For each run 

use the “measurement data phase” readings to calculate the 

average stack gas CO and O2 concentrations.

8.3 EC Cell Temperature. During each stack gas sampling run, 

measure and record the temperature of the EC cells. The 

temperature during each run must not vary more than ± 10°F. The 

overall EC cell temperature variation must be less than ± 20°F 

from the pre-sampling calibration to the final post-sampling 

calibration check. 

8.4 EC Cell Flow Rate. Maintain the EC cell sample flow rate so 

that it does not vary by more than ± 10 percent throughout the 

pre-sampling calibration, stack gas sampling and post-sampling 

calibration check. Alternatively, the EC cell sample flow rate 

can be maintained within a tolerance range that does not affect 

the gas concentration readings by more than ± 3 percent, as 

instructed by the EC cell manufacturer. 

9.0 Quality Control (Reserved)

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Pre-Sampling Calibration. Conduct the following protocol 

once for each nominal range to be used on each EC cell before 
Page 191 of 197

performing a stack gas sampling run on each field sampling day. 

Repeat the calibration if you replace an EC cell before 

completing all of the sampling runs. There is no prescribed 

order for calibration of the EC cells; however, each cell must 

complete the measurement data phase during calibration. Assemble 

the measurement system by following the manufacturer's 

recommended protocols including for preparing and 

preconditioning the EC cell. Assure the measurement system has 

no leaks and verify the gas scrubbing agent is not depleted. Use 

Figure 1 to record all data. 

10.1.1 Zero Calibration. For both the O2 and CO cells, introduce 

zero gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the concentration reading every minute 

until readings are constant for at least two consecutive 

minutes. Include the time, EC cell temperature, and sample flow 

rate. Repeat the steps in this section at least once to verify 

the zero calibration for each component gas. 

10.1.2 Zero Calibration Tolerance. For each zero gas 

introduction, the zero level output must be less than or equal 

to ± 3 percent of the up-scale gas value or ± 1 ppm, whichever 

is less restrictive, for the CO channel and less than or equal 

to ± 0.3 percent O2 for the O2 channel. 

10.1.3 Up-Scale Calibration. Individually introduce each 

calibration gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the 
Page 192 of 197

calibration assembly) and record the start time. Record all EC 

cell output responses, the EC cell temperature, and the flow 

rate during this “sample conditioning phase” once per minute 

until readings are constant for at least two minutes. Then begin 

the “measurement data phase” and record readings every 15 

seconds for a total of two minutes, or as otherwise required. 

Finally, perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, 

free from CO and other combustion gases, until readings are 

constant for at least two consecutive minutes. Then repeat the 

steps in this section at least once to verify the calibration 

for each component gas. Introduce all gases to flow through the 

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

sampling probe or the calibration assembly). 

10.1.4 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference of 

the “measurement data phase” readings from the reported standard 

gas value must be less than or equal to ± 5 percent or ± 1 ppm 

for CO or ± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, 

respectively. The maximum allowable deviation from the mean 

measured value of any single "measurement data phase" reading 

must be less than or equal to ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or 

± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, respectively. 

10.2 Post-Sampling Calibration Check. Conduct a stack gas postsampling calibration check after the stack gas sampling run or 

set of runs and within 12 hours of the initial calibration. 
Page 193 of 197

Conduct up-scale and zero calibration checks using the protocol 

in Section 10.1. Make no changes to the sampling system or EC 

cell calibration until all post-sampling calibration checks have 

been recorded. If either the zero or up-scale calibration error 

exceeds the respective specification in Sections 10.1.2 and 

10.1.4 then all measurement data collected since the previous 

successful calibrations are invalid and re-calibration and resampling are required. If the sampling system is disassembled or 

the EC cell calibration is adjusted, repeat the calibration 

check before conducting the next analyzer sampling run. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

The analytical procedure is fully discussed in Section 8.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

Determine the CO and O2 concentrations for each stack gas 

sampling run by calculating the mean gas concentrations of the 

data recorded during the “measurement data phase”. 

13.0 Protocol Performance

Use the following protocols to verify consistent analyzer 

performance during each field sampling day. 

13.1 Measurement Data Phase Performance Check. Calculate the 

mean of the readings from the “measurement data phase”. The 

maximum allowable deviation from the mean for each of the 

individual readings is ± 2 percent, or ± 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. Record the mean value and maximum deviation 
Page 194 of 197

for each gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 10.1.4. The 

EC cell temperature and EC cell flow rate must conform to the 

specifications in Section 8.3 and 8.4 respectively. 

Example: A measurement data phase is invalid if the maximum 

deviation of any single reading comprising that mean is greater 

than ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm (the default criteria). For example, 

if the mean = 30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and above 

31 ppm are disallowed).

13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial use of the EC cell 

and interference gas scrubber in the field, and semi-annually 

thereafter, challenge the interference gas scrubber with an NO2

gas standard that is generally recognized as representative of 

diesel-fueled engine NO2 emission values. Record the response 

displayed by the CO EC cell and other pertinent data on Figure 1 

or a similar form. 

13.2.1 Interference Response. The CO interference response 

should be less than or equal to ± 5 percent of the up-scale CO 

calibration gas concentration. 

13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the following check once for 

each nominal range that is to be used on the CO EC cell within 

five days prior to each field sampling program. If a field 

sampling program lasts longer than five days, repeat this check 

every five days. Immediately repeat the check if the EC cell is 

replaced or if the EC cell is exposed to gas concentrations 
Page 195 of 197

greater than 150 percent of the highest up-scale gas 

concentration.

13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. Perform a complete EC cell 

sampling run (all three phases) by introducing the CO 

calibration gas to the measurement system and record the 

response. Follow Section 10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all 

data. Repeat the run three times for a total of four complete 

runs. During the four repeatability check runs, do not adjust 

the system except where necessary to achieve the correct 

calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer.

13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. Determine the highest 

and lowest average “measurement data phase” CO concentrations 

from the four repeatability check runs and record the results on 

Figure 1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the difference 

between the maximum and minimum average values recorded must not 

vary more than ± 3 percent or ± 1 ppm of the up-scale gas value, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved)

15.0 Waste Management (Reserved) 

16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved) 

17.0 References

(1) “Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer 

Test Protocol”, Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission 

Monitoring, Inc., July 1997. 
Page 196 of 197

(2) “Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and 

Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and 

Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers”, EMC Conditional Test 

Protocol 30 (CTM-30), Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI96/0008, Revision 7, October 13, 1997. 

(3) "ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic Monitoring”, EMC 

Conditional Test Protocol 34 (CTM-034), The Institute of Clean 

Air Companies, September 8, 1999. 

(4) “Code of Federal Regulations”, Protection of Environment, 

40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1-4; 10. 

Table 1: Appendix A - Sampling Run Data. 

Facility________________ Engine I.D.______________ Date_________ 

 Run Type: (__) (__) (__) (__) 

 (X) Pre-Sample Stack Gas Post-Sample Repeatability 

 Calibration Sample Cal. Check Check 

 

Run # 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Time Scrub. 

OK 

FlowRate 

Gas O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO 

 

Sample 

Cond. 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

Measurement 

Data 

Phase 

 

“ 
Page 197 of 197

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

 Mean 

 

Refresh 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 
Subject: RICE -- Comments on CI RIA and Pipeline issue

Attachments: EO_12866_RICE_NESHAP_Reconsideration_Proposal_2060-

AQ58_5_16_2012__InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563onPipelines.d

ocx

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/16/2012 02:07 PM 

Subject: RICE -- Comments on CI RIA and Pipeline issue

Hi Melanie and Larry, 

Below are additional comments on the CI RIA from interagency reviewers: 

- Table 3-23 on page 3-29 does not fit in that location, as it is a table related to hospitals in the section for 

irrigation and welding engines. Also, in the paragraph just following Table 3-27 on page 3-32, the acreages 

included by EPA represent all acreage (irrigated and non-irrigated) and should be noted as such. As it 

reads now, one could assume that this acreage represents irrigated acreage only. EPA’s statement in that 

paragraph that the use of on-farm irrigation pumps “...is tied to the amount of agricultural land in 

production” is also not entirely correct, as there is no set percentage of agricultural land in production that 

is annually under irrigation. Additionally, the use of engines (and size of engines) is also related to the 

source of water for irrigated lands. Larger engines will be needed for pumping groundwater from greater 

depths, whereas smaller electric pumps may be used more appropriately for nearby surface irrigation 

water. 

- The CI RICE RIA only shows 18 total irrigation engines >300 hp (see Table 4-5). These numbers appear to 

go all the way back to the original CI RICE analysis, which was prior to receiving the updated irrigation 

information from USDA that was used in the SI analysis. Although those numbers aren’t perfect either, that 

analysis indicated there were likely a little over 5200 CI irrigation engines >300 hp. We also know that the 

San Joaquin Valley has at least 426 engines in this category (17 Tier 3 with early adoption, 49 Tier 1, 306 

Tier 2 – all of these are involved in the issues under consideration in this rule), so the national inventory 

should be higher. From this, we obviously already know that there are more than 18. 

- It looks to me like the numbers in the CI RIA weren’t updated after receiving the update information from 

USDA because the 2010 CI rule was already finalized and this is the first time since then that it has been reopened. We should really use the updated USDA-NASS information, realizing that most of the 5200 CI 

engines >300 hp are going to be at area sources and remote. That also obviously changes the cost/benefits 

for these engines, and puts a greater emphasis on extending the remoteness relief proposal to CI engines. 

We aren’t talking about 18 engines that would be affected anymore, we’re now talking about several 

thousand – many of which are likely on individual farms with individual farmers operating them.

Melanie, on the pipeline issue, interrgency reviewers had the following comments: 

If EPA intends to keep the definition of a pipeline segment to mean only a natural gas pipeline, we agree that the 

change to the reg text in paragraph 3 of 63.6675 set forth below is needed. 

In addition, we suggest minor modifications be made to the preamble at pages 10-11 and 45 to clarify that the 

alternative of 5 buildings in 0.25 mile radius for non-pipeline engines will also be applied to engines along 

hazardous liquid pipelines. See attached. 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

________________________________________________ 
Cortney Higgins, PhD 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov 

(See attached file: EO_12866_RICE_NESHAP_Reconsideration_Proposal_2060-

AQ58_5_16_2012_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563onPipelines.docx)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE; NSPS For Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines 2060-AQ58 Proposal 20120410 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-XXXX-Y] 

RIN 2060-AQ58 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. The proposed amendments include alternative 

testing options for certain large spark ignition (generally 

natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark 

ignition stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines in 

sparsely populated areas and alternative monitoring and 

compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The 
Page 2 of 197 

EPA is also proposing to include a limited temporary allowance 

for existing stationary emergency area source engines to be used 

for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response. In addition, 

the EPA is proposing to increase the hours that stationary 

emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The 

proposed amendments also correct minor mistakes in the preexisting regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

DATE 45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 30 

days after date of public meeting if later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 

public meeting by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public meeting will be held on 

[INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If you are interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify 

that a meeting will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, by one of the following methods: 

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

 Fax: (202) 566-1741. 

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Page 3 of 197 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please 

include a total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

 Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going 
Page 4 of 197 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is held, it will be held at 

the EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC or an alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies on documents in 

Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0030, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, and incorporated 

those dockets into the record for this action. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in 
Page 5 of 197 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy 

Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-

01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile 

number (919) 541-5450; email address king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 

the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions 

G. Compliance Date 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 
Page 6 of 197 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts? 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This proposal was developed to address certain issues that have 

been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, several 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments 

and other communications. This proposal also provides 

clarifications and corrects minor mistakes in the current RICE 

NESHAP and revises the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
Page 7 of 197 

for stationary engines, 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

for consistency with the RICE NESHAP. 

This action is conducted under the authority of section 112 

of the CAA, “Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (HAP) which requires the 

EPA to establish NESHAP for the control of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing sources in regulated 

source categories. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments, the 

EPA received several petitions for reconsideration, legal 

challenges, and other communications raising issues of practical 

implementability, and certain factual information that had not 

been brought to the EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The 

EPA has considered this information and believes that amendments 

to the rule to address certain of these issues are appropriate. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, NESHAP for Stationary RICE. The current regulation applies 

to owners and operators of existing and new stationary RICE at 

major and area sources of HAP emissions. The applicability of 

the rule remains the same and is not changed by this proposal. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

engines to conform with certain of the amendments proposed for 

the NESHAP. 
Page 8 of 197 

The EPA proposes to add an alternative compliance 

demonstration option for stationary 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB) 

spark ignition (SI) engines subject to a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction. Owners and operators of 4SRB engines 

would be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the 76 percent 

formaldehyde reduction emission standard by testing total 

hydrocarbon (THC) emissions and showing that the engine is 

achieving at least a 30 percent reduction of THC emissions. The 

alternative compliance option would provide a less expensive and 

less complex, but equally effective, method for demonstrating 

compliance than testing for formaldehyde. 

Certain stationary RICE are maintained in order to be able 

to respond to emergency power needs. The EPA proposes to allow 

owners and operators of such stationary emergency RICE to 

operate their engines as part of an emergency demand response 

program within the 100 hours per year that is already permitted 

for maintenance and testing of the engines. The 100 hours per 

year allowance would ensure that a sufficient number of hours 

are permitted for engines to meet independent system operator 

(ISO) and regional transmission organization (RTO) tariffs and 

other requirements for participating in various emergency demand 

response programs and would assist in stabilizing the grid, 

preventing electrical blackouts and supporting local electric 

system reliability. A temporary limited allowance that will 
Page 9 of 197 

expire on April 16, 2017, is being proposed for stationary 

emergency engines located at area sources of HAP emissions to be 

used for up to 50 hours per year for any non-emergency purpose, 

including peak shaving. The 50 hours is part of the 100 hours 

per year total allowance for all types of emergency engine 

operation (except during emergencies where no other power is 

available, which is not restricted by the rule). The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources time to address 

reliability issues and develop solutions to reliability issues 

while facilities are coming into compliance with the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and 

Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, which were 

promulgated on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). 

 The EPA proposes management practices for owners and 

operators of existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 500 

horsepower (HP) that are area sources of HAP emissions and where 

the engines are remote from human activity. A remote area along 

a natural gas pipeline is defined as a Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Class 1 pipeline location1. If the facility 

is along a hazardous liquid pipeline or not on a pipeline, an 

 

1

 DOT’s definition of a Class 1 location applies to remote areas 

along natural gas pipelines (49 C.F.R. § 192.5). For purposes 

of this proposed rule, a Class 1 location is defined as an 

offshore area or any class location unit along a natural gas 

that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Deleted: either 

Deleted: , or, if

Deleted: if

Deleted: or a hazardous liquid 

pipeline 
Page 10 of 197 

area with fewer than 5 buildings intended for human occupancy

within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility would be a remote 

area. The EPA proposes that these sources be subject to 

management practices rather than aftertreatment-forcing 

standards and associated testing and monitoring. This would 

address reasonable concerns with accessibility, infrastructure, 

and staffing that stem from the remoteness of the engines and 

higher costs that would be associated with compliance with the 

existing requirements. The EPA proposes that existing stationary 

4-stroke SI engines above 500 HP at area sources that are in 

populated areas (defined as DOT pipeline Class 2 through Class 4 

areas, or if not on a pipeline, if within a 0.25 mile radius of 

the facility there are more than 5 buildings intended for human 

occupancy) be subject to an equipment standard that requires the 

installation of HAP-reducing aftertreatment. Sources would be 

required to test their engines to demonstrate compliance 

initially, perform catalyst activity check-ups, and either 

monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously or employ 

high temperature shutdown devices to protect the catalyst. 

To address how certain existing compression ignition (CI) 

engines are currently regulated, the EPA proposes to specify 

that any existing certified CI engine above 300 HP at an area 

source of HAP emissions that was certified to meet the Tier 3 

engine standards and was installed before June 12, 2006, is in 

Deleted: there are 5 or less 

buildings intended for human 

occupancy
Page 11 of 197 

compliance with the NESHAP. This provision would create 

regulatory consistency between the same engines installed before 

and after June 12, 2006. 

The EPA is proposing amendments to the requirements for 

existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject to state and locally 

enforceable requirements requiring replacement of the engine by 

January 1, 2018. This is meant to deal with a specific concern 

regarding the interaction of the NESHAP with certain rules for 

agricultural engines in the San Joaquin Valley in California. 

The EPA is proposing to allow these engines to meet management 

practices under the RICE NESHAP for a period of 2 years until 

May 3, 2015. This provision would deal with the issue of owners 

and operators having to install controls on their engines in 

order to meet the RICE NESHAP, and then having to replace their 

engines shortly thereafter due to state and local rules 

specifying the replacement of engines. Owners and operators will 

have two additional years to replace their engines without 

having to install controls, but will be required to use 

management practices during that period. 

The last major change the EPA proposes to make is to 

broaden the definition of remote area sources of Alaska in the 

RICE NESHAP. Currently, remote areas are those that are not on 

the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). This change would permit 
Page 12 of 197 

existing stationary CI engines at other remote area sources in 

Alaska to meet management practices as opposed to emission 

standards likely necessitating aftertreatment. These remote 

areas have the same challenges as areas not on the FAHS, and 

complying with the current rule would similarly be prohibitively 

costly and potentially infeasible. In addition to area sources 

located in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS 

being defined as remote and subject to management practices, the 

EPA also proposes that any stationary RICE in Alaska meeting all 

of the following conditions be subject to management practices: 

 (1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid, and 

(2) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes, and 

(3) The generating capacity of the area source is less than 

12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 hrs 

per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

3. Costs and Benefits 
Page 13 of 197 

 These proposed amendments would reduce the capital and 

annual costs of the original 2010 amendments by $287 million and 

$139 million, respectively. The EPA estimates that with the 

proposed amendments, the capital cost of the rule is $840 

million and the annual cost is $490 million ($2010). 

These proposed amendments would also result in decreases to 

the reductions estimated in 2013 from the original 2010 RICE 

NESHAP amendments. The estimated reductions in 2013 from the 

2010 RICE NESHAP rulemaking with these proposed amendments are 

2,800 tons per year (tpy) of HAP, 36,000 tpy of carbon monoxide 

(CO), 2,800 tpy of particulate matter (PM), 9,600 tpy of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx), and 36,000 tpy of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). 

The EPA estimates the monetized co-benefits in 2013 of the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments with these proposed 

amendments incorporated to be $830 million to $2,100 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $740 million to 

$1,800 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. 

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry 

using a 

stationary 

internal 

2211 Electric power generation, 

transmission, or distribution. 

622110 Medical and surgical hospitals. 
Page 14 of 197 

combustion engine 

as defined in the 

proposed 

amendments. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas 

production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 

a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by 

this action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of 

this proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 

through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all 

of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 

in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Page 15 of 197 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. 

Melanie King, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

 (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 

identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date 

and page number). 

 (b) Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to 

specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

 (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your requested changes. 

 (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used. 

 (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 

you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for 

it to be reproduced. 

 (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, 

and suggest alternatives. 
Page 16 of 197 

 (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 Website (TTN 

Web). Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of this 

proposed rule on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

 This action proposes amendments to the NESHAP for RICE in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. This action also proposes 

amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ. The NESHAP for stationary RICE to 

regulate emissions of HAP was developed in several stages. The 

EPA initially addressed stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources of HAP emissions in 2004 (69 FR 33473). 

The EPA addressed new stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources and new stationary RICE located at 
Page 17 of 197 

area sources in 2008 (73 FR 3568). Most recently, requirements 

for existing stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources were finalized in 2010 (75 FR 9648 and 75 FR 

51570). 

 The EPA is proposing to address a number of issues that 

have been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, 

several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments, and other communications. The EPA is also proposing 

to revise 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP and to make minor corrections and 

clarifications. The following sections present the issues that 

the EPA is addressing in this action, background information as 

to why these issues are causing concern among affected 

stakeholders, and how the EPA proposes to resolve the issues. 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option

1. Background 

 Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 

HP located at major sources and existing SI 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at area sources have the 

option of meeting either a formaldehyde percent reduction or a 

formaldehyde concentration standard. Formaldehyde was 

established in the original 2004 RICE NESHAP as an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB engines based on industry 
Page 18 of 197 

test data available at that time. Based on testing of stationary 

lean burn engines conducted at Colorado State University (CSU), 

the EPA was able to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP for lean 

burn engines. Rich burn engines were not tested at CSU and the 

data the EPA had available at the time that were used to set the 

standards for rich burn engines did not support the same 

relationship between CO and HAP reductions for rich burn 

engines. Therefore, the EPA was unable to establish CO as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions for rich burn engines and the 

emission standard for rich burn engines was specified in terms 

of formaldehyde, the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the 

largest quantity from stationary engines. 

 The EPA has previously acknowledged that it is 

significantly more expensive and difficult to test for 

formaldehyde than for CO, but has been unable in the past to 

support including the same flexibility for rich burn engines as 

is currently in the rule for lean burn engines with the option 

to meet the standards in terms of either formaldehyde or CO. For 

these reasons and expecting that new data for rich burn engines 

may become available in the future for the EPA to review and 

reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the EPA requested comment 

on this issue when proposing NESHAP for stationary existing 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources and all 

stationary existing engines at area sources in 2009 (74 FR 
Page 19 of 197 

9698). Specifically, the EPA solicited comment on whether it 

would be appropriate to include an alternative standard in terms 

of VOC and asked that commenters submit data supporting the 

relationship between HAP and VOC. Comments the EPA received back 

on the proposed rule asked that the formaldehyde standards for 

rich burn engines be replaced with emission standards for THC. 

The EPA determined at the time that it was not appropriate to 

adopt an alternative standard in terms of THC (or VOC) for rich 

burn engines and discussed the reasons why in the 2010 responses 

to comments.2

 Compliance with the formaldehyde standard in the 

rule is, therefore, currently demonstrated by initial and 

continuous performance testing for formaldehyde. 

 On October 19, 2010, engine manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted a petition for reconsideration of the formaldehyde 

requirements. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration 

on January 5, 2011. (In addition, on November 3, 2010, the 

Engine Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for 

judicial review of these requirements.) In the petition for 

reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha argued that formaldehyde is 

 

2

 Memorandum from Melanie King, EPA Energy Strategies Group to 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines Located at Area Sources of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less Than or Equal to 

500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions. August 10, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0557. 
Page 20 of 197 

difficult and costly to measure. The petition requested that the 

HAP surrogate for 4SRB engines should be THC rather than 

formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha submitted data from testing it 

conducted illustrating that THC reduction across the catalyst is 

an appropriate surrogate for HAP reduction across the catalyst.3

According to the petitioner, testing for THC is easier and less 

costly and would substantially reduce the burden of the rule for 

owners and operators of these engines. Testing for formaldehyde 

emissions could cost more than double that of testing for THC 

emissions and on a nationwide basis the EPA estimates that 

replacing formaldehyde testing with THC testing would result in 

substantial compliance cost savings annually while achieving the 

same reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data submitted by DresserWaukesha. The data provided indicate that a strong relationship 

exists between percentage reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the surrogate for HAP emissions in 

the NESHAP) on rich burn engines using non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA indicate that if the 

NSCR is reducing THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB engines, 

formaldehyde emissions are guaranteed to be reduced by at least 

 

3

Letter from Dresser-Waukesha to Melanie King. Follow-up to 

November 18, 2010 Teleconference. December 6, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0662. 
Page 21 of 197 

76 percent, which is the percentage reduction required for the 

relevant engines. Indeed, the percentage reduction of 

formaldehyde is invariably well above the 76 percent level, and 

is usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the EPA agrees with the 

petitioner that for SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and meeting the 

NESHAP by showing a percentage reduction of HAP, it would be 

appropriate to allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the 

NESHAP by showing a THC reduction of at least 30 percent. 

Including an optional THC compliance demonstration option would 

reduce the cost of compliance significantly while continuing to 

achieve the same level of HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the same. Consequently, the EPA 

is proposing amendments to allow owners and operators of certain 

stationary 4SRB engines (i.e., the ones currently subject to a 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement) to show compliance 

with an optional THC compliance demonstration option. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are presented below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to add an alternative method of 

demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP for stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for existing stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

area sources of HAP emissions that choose to meet the 
Page 22 of 197 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement of 76 percent or 

more. 

 Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the 

petition discussed above, the EPA is proposing to add a 

compliance demonstration option for stationary 4SRB engines 

meeting a 76 percent or more formaldehyde reduction. The 

compliance demonstration option would be an alternative to the 

existing method of demonstrating compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction standard, which is to test 

engines for formaldehyde. The alternative for owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines meeting a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction would be to test their engines for THC 

showing that the engine is achieving at least a 30 percent 

reduction of THC emissions. 

 Under the proposed amendments, existing and new stationary 

4SRB engines greater than 500 HP and located at major sources 

would still be required to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more or limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 parts per billion by volume, 

dry basis or less at 15 percent oxygen (O2). However, owners and 

operators choosing to meet the formaldehyde concentration limit 

would not have the THC demonstration compliance option, because 

EPA could not verify a clear relationship between concentrations 

of THC and concentrations of formaldehyde in exhaust from these 
Page 23 of 197 

SI 4SRB engines. For the reasons discussed in section II.C.1 of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing that existing stationary 

4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources located in populated areas be subject to an equipment 

standard and required to install a catalyst. These engines would 

be subject to testing to demonstrate initially and on an ongoing 

basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively that THC emissions are being reduced by 30 percent 

or more. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SRB engines 

less than or equal to 500 HP who are required to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

10.3 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 

15 percent O2 do not have the option to demonstrate compliance 

using THC and must continue to demonstrate compliance by testing 

for formaldehyde following the methods and procedures specified 

in the rule. 

 Owners and operators opting to use the THC compliance 

demonstration method must demonstrate compliance by showing that 

the average reduction of THC is equal to or greater than 30 

percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and 

demonstrating compliance by using the THC compliance 

demonstration option must conduct performance testing using 
Page 24 of 197 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A – Determination of 

Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 

Analyzer. Measurements of THC at the inlet and the outlet of the 

NSCR must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent O2 or 

equivalent carbon dioxide content. To correct to 15 percent O2, 

dry basis, owners and operators must measure oxygen using Method 

3, 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM Method D6522-

00 (2005) and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. Because owners and operators are complying with a 

percent reduction requirement, the method used must be suitable 

for the entire range of emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 25A is capable of measuring 

emissions down to 5 ppmv and is, therefore, an appropriate 

method for measuring THC emissions for compliance demonstration 

purposes. The EPA is allowing sources the option to meet a 

minimum THC percent reduction of 30 percent by using Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to demonstrate compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

1. Background 

 This action also proposes to amend provisions in the RICE 

NESHAP that currently allow owners and operators to operate 

stationary emergency engines for up to 15 hours per year as part 
Page 25 of 197 

of a demand response program if the RTO or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator have determined there are 

emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical 

blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, 

capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. 

The final rule did not allow emergency engines to be used for 

purposes of peak shaving or other non-emergency purposes as part 

of a financial arrangement. These provisions were included in 

the RICE NESHAP when requirements for existing stationary CI 

engines were finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648). Following 

the completion of that portion of the rule, the EPA received 

three main petitions for reconsideration. One petition was from 

CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC. (EnerNOC et al.)(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-

0404). Another petition was received from the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE 

DNREC) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0400). The third petition was from 

the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 

(OAR-2008-0708-0580). In addition to these main petitions the 

EPA received a substantial number of letters from others in the 

electric generation industry. 

 The petition from EnerNOC, et al., asked that EPA increase 

the period of time permitted for emergency demand response 

operation in the rule to 60 hours per year, or the minimum 
Page 26 of 197 

number of hours required by the emergency demand response 

program. By contrast, the DE DNREC petition asked EPA to 

reconsider the emergency demand response provision because of 

the adverse effects that it believes would result from increased 

emissions from these engines. The petition from NRECA requested 

that the EPA eliminate the restriction on the use of stationary 

emergency engines for demand response purposes. The EPA granted 

the petitions from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and NRECA, and 

issued a notice on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75937), requesting 

comments on whether to amend the 15 hours per year limitation on 

the operation of stationary emergency RICE participating in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 comments from a number of 

different entities including various state agencies, utilities, 

electric cooperatives and industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per year is not sufficient to 

meet current emergency demand response requirements for 

participation. For example, several emergency demand response 

programs have ISO tariff requirements greater than 15 hours per 

year, including the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

emergency demand response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the Pennsylvania Jersey 

Maryland (“PJM”) Interconnection, known as the Emergency Load 

Response Program, which has a tariff requirement of 60 hours per 
Page 27 of 197 

year; and the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”), which forecasts that 

backup resources would be expected for 55 hours over a 12-month 

period. Tariff requirements are developed to specify the 

mandatory time load resources (engines) must be willing and able 

to operate if the units are enrolled in the program. Conversely, 

some commenters urged the EPA to allow stationary emergency 

engines to only operate during true emergencies or when voltage 

or frequency varies beyond specified parameters. 

 Based on the EPA’s review of the petitions and comments 

that the EPA has received, the EPA has found it appropriate to 

propose to amend the current rule to increase the allowance for 

stationary emergency engine participation in emergency demand 

response programs to up to 100 hours per year, which would be 

included as part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 hours for 

owners of emergency engines to test and maintain their emergency 

engines. The EPA believes that the emergency demand response 

programs that exist across the country are important programs 

that protect the reliability and stability of the national 

electric service grid. Allowing stationary emergency engines to 

operate as part of emergency demand response programs can help 

prevent grid failure or blackouts, by allowing these engines to 

be used in circumstances of grid instability prior to the 

occurrence of blackouts. Preventing stationary emergency engines 

from being able to qualify and participate in emergency demand 
Page 28 of 197 

response programs without having to apply aftertreatment could 

force owners and operators to leave their engines out of these 

programs, which will impair the ability of ISOs and RTOs to use 

these relatively small, quick-starting and reliable sources of 

energy to protect the reliability of their systems. The EPA does 

not wish to potentially jeopardize electrical reliability or 

create a disincentive for stationary emergency engines to 

participate in these programs. The circumstances during which 

the EPA would allow stationary emergency engines to operate for 

emergency demand response purposes include periods during which 

the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard 

EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA Level 2 

alerts there is insufficient energy supply and a true potential 

for electrical blackouts. System operators must call on all 

available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts in order to 

stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation 

is a good indicator of severe instability on the system. 

Consistent normal voltage provided by the utility is often 

called power quality and is an important factor in local 
Page 29 of 197 

electric system reliability. Reliability of the system requires 

electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The 

American National Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 

defines the maximum allowable voltage sag at below 5 percent. On 

the local distribution level local voltage levels are therefore 

important and a 5 percent or more change in the normal voltage 

or frequency is substantial and an indication that additional 

resources are needed to ensure local distribution system 

reliability. This situation would be indicative of severe 

instability on the system. 

Emergency demand response programs rely on agreements under 

which owners of engine agree to make their engines available to 

be called upon for a specific number of hours per year, as 

required by the relevant ISO or RTO tariff, under specified 

circumstances considered to indicate emergencies. In order to be 

enrolled in an emergency demand response program, participants 

must qualify their engines and must be able to use their 

emergency engines for the number of hours the program requires. 

Engines are not generally called upon for the maximum hours 

required by the tariffs. However, even though the engine may not 

be called at all or may run for fewer hours than the program 

requires it to be available in a particular year, the engine 

must still be available for those theoretical number of hours in 

order to join the program. Demand response contracts require 
Page 30 of 197 

more hours than the 15 hours per year that is currently in the 

regulations, and the commenters state that the 15 hours per year 

is not a sufficient amount of time to ensure the reliability of 

the program; some programs require up to 60 hours per year, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble. For these reasons, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to allow additional hours for 

emergency demand response operation in order for such programs 

to be accessible to stationary emergency engines. Consequently, 

the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule to increase the 

limitation on emergency demand response operation to 100 hours 

per year for stationary emergency engines. It is expected that 

owners and operators of stationary emergency engines that seek 

to qualify their units as demand resources would with the 

proposed increase to 100 hours per year be able to meet the 

operational and qualification requirements of the different ISOs 

and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency engines that participate in 

demand response programs may not be called upon at all, but must 

nonetheless be available to operate for the required amount 

stipulated by the specific program. The purpose of the limited 

allowance for emergency demand response is to respond to 

emergencies, and the EPA is persuaded by the information that 

has been submitted that 15 hours per year is an insufficient 

amount of time to allow for emergency demand response needs, 
Page 31 of 197 

given past experience. The EPA believes 100 hours per year is 

sufficient to cover any potential demand response operation as 

well as the required maintenance and testing that is also 

included within the 100 hours of operation. 

The EPA has previously determined that stationary emergency 

engines typically operate well below 50 hours per year and more 

commonly about 1 to 2 hours per month. A survey conducted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicated the average 

yearly operation for emergency diesel engines was 31 hours over 

a period of 3 years. The majority of those hours were for the 

purpose of maintenance and testing; less than 5 hours was for 

interruptible service contracts, and the remaining amount for 

emergency/standby operation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011). Data 

from demand response programs in ISO-NE and PJM territories show 

that backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours 

during the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.4

 

However, again, emergency units must be available to 

operate more than that in most cases to qualify for demand 

response programs. For instance, PJM requires a minimum ISO 

tariff of 60 hours per year of engine availability for program 

participation. Consequently, in order to ensure that a 

 

4

 Memorandum from Stacy Angel, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to 

Doug Hurley, Synapse Energy Economics. Sample Revenue for a 1 MW 

Backup Generation Unit. June 27, 2011. 
Page 32 of 197 

sufficient amount of operating time is available for maintenance 

and readiness testing, and for demand response operation, the 

EPA is proposing 100 hours of operation. A number of commenters 

requested that an allowance of 100 hours per year be allowed in 

order to provide adequate hours consistent with minimum required 

hours that customers must be available to operate and to address 

local distribution system emergencies. For instance, in Hawaii, 

the emergency demand response program operated by the Hawaiian 

Electric Company requires that emergency engines be able to 

operate for 100 hours per year in the event of an emergency in 

order to participate in the program. In order to provide a 

sufficient amount of time to cover annual maintenance and 

testing, which is typically more than 20 hours per year 

according to the survey conducted by CARB (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0029-0011), plus to cover hours necessary for qualifying for 

emergency demand response programs or local distribution system 

emergencies, EPA believes an allowance of 100 hours per year 

would be appropriate for these activities. Taking into account 

that there may be situations where annual maintenance and 

testing could exceed the typical 1 to 2 hours per month and 

accounting for other emergency demand response programs that 

require more than 60 hours per year for program participation 

(e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), the EPA believes that 100 
Page 33 of 197 

hours per year is appropriate for emergency demand response plus 

maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule would mean that 

stationary emergency engines could operate for a total of 100 

hours per year for emergency demand response operation as part 

of the 100 hours already permitted for maintenance and readiness 

testing while maintaining their status as emergency units, 

rather than non-emergency units, and continue to meet the 

requirements that apply to emergency engines. 

 On the issue of peak shaving and non-emergency demand 

response, the EPA is proposing to include a temporary limited 

allowance for peak shaving and other types of non-emergency use 

as part of a financial arrangement for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources of HAP, if the peak shaving is 

done as part of a peak shaving (or load management) program with 

the local distribution system operator. The power generated 

under this allowance can only be used at the facility or towards 

the local system. 

 The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to include 

the option for existing stationary emergency engines at area 

sources to operate for a small number (50) of hours per year for 

any non-emergency reason and not be penalized or considered a 

non-emergency engine and subsequently required to install 

aftertreatment that could be prohibitively costly for these 
Page 34 of 197 

sources in the near term. The EPA is proposing that the 50-hour 

allowance for peak shaving for emergency engines at area sources 

be allowed for a limited period of time, but then removed after 

April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would also be limited to 

operation as part of a peak shaving (load management program) 

with the local distribution system operator. Owners would still 

have the pre-existing 50 hours per year allowance for nonemergency operation after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours 

could no longer be used for peak shaving. The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources an additional 

resource for maintaining reliability while facilities are coming 

into compliance with the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). While the EPA does 

not expect the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units to cause regional reliability problems, 

this limited allowance would allow the owners and operators of 

these engines more flexibility to run reliability critical units 

in order to minimize potential grid-related interruptions as 

coal- and oil-fired baseload power plants may be temporarily 

shut down to install emission controls to comply with the NESHAP 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

 Including this allowance is important for small electric 

cooperatives and other entities located at area sources that use 

these engines to maintain voltage and electric reliability. Many 
Page 35 of 197 

rural electric cooperatives enter agreements with owners of 

small emergency engines and rely on the engines to reduce demand 

on the central power supply during periods of high demand, which 

reduces the cost of power during periods of high demand for the 

members of the cooperative. Commenters promoting the continued 

use of peak shaving programs said that maintaining the cost of 

power as low as possible is important across the country, but is 

particularly of significant importance to rural electric 

cooperatives that, according to the commenter, service customers 

in the most economically depressed areas of the country, where 

options are the most limited. The commenters argued that if 

small emergency engines would no longer be permitted to operate 

for peak shaving purposes without having to be reclassified as 

non-emergency engines and subsequently subject to costly 

emissions controls, owners could no longer afford to participate 

in such programs. Cooperatives argued that this would lead to 

increased costs that would ultimately be passed along to the 

customers. Commenters also maintained that keeping peak shaving 

programs would not lead to additional public health risks or 

emissions because the operation for peak shaving is minimal. If 

peak shaving is not allowed under the rule, commenters said that 

this would lead to an increase in central power station capacity 

and possibly more transmission and distribution line capacity to 

accommodate the increase in demand resulting from eliminating 
Page 36 of 197 

small emergency engines from being used. This could lead to a 

larger impact on the environment and public health than allowing 

a small number of hours for peak shaving purposes. Certain small 

and remote facilities also rely on financial programs to 

generate additional income in order to maintain their engines 

and stay in operation. The additional funds can be essential for 

many smaller facilities and operations. Providing a limited 

allowance for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response 

could generate sufficient income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where these engines are in 

service. In order to further limit the operation of these 

engines to small, remote facilities, the EPA is proposing that 

the power generated under this allowance can only be used at the 

facility or towards the local system. In addition, while the EPA 

is proposing this allowance until the end of April 16, 2017, the 

EPA does not believe it is appropriate to continue the program 

beyond that time. Generators receive considerable compensation 

for their availability in peak shaving programs and the EPA 

believes that it is not appropriate to allow these engines to 

continue receiving compensation for this non-emergency use 

beyond 2017 without having to reduce their emissions. The 

generators must by that time decide whether to restrict their 

use to emergency or limited non-compensated non-emergency use or 

to reduce the emissions from their engines. The EPA also 
Page 37 of 197 

encourages engine owners and operators, as well as larger system 

planners, to consider the use of alternative peak shaving 

options, such as load curtailments, lower emitting distributed 

generation, combined heat and power, and reduced line losses on 

the electricity grid. 

The previous estimate of emissions from stationary 

emergency engines is not expected to change due to this proposed 

limited allowance. To estimate emissions from stationary 

emergency engines, the EPA has previously estimated that 

emergency engines would on average operate for 50 hours per 

year. There is a wide range in how much these engines operate 

(some well below 50 hours per year), but on average and to be 

conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is still 

representative and consequently the environmental impact the EPA 

has calculated previously remains appropriate. In consideration 

of all these issues, the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule 

to provide a limited allowance for peak shaving for existing 

stationary emergency engines at area sources of HAP. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

a. Emergency Demand Response. Based on the discussion in section 

II.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the 

current provisions for stationary engines used for emergency 

demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing 
Page 38 of 197 

to amend are in §§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) allows a maximum of 

15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation 

under certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) 

currently includes an allowance of 100 hours per year for 

purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE 

be permitted to operate their engines as part of an emergency 

demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is 

permitted for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). 

Owners and operators of stationary emergency engines can operate 

for emergency demand response during periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an EEA Level 2 

as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergency and during periods where there is a deviation of 

voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. The hours spent for emergency demand 

response operation are added to the hours spent for maintenance 

and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. 

If the total time spent for demand response operation and 

maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the engine 

will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart 
Page 39 of 197 

and will need to meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be called 

to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or 

equivalent to maintain the reliability of the bulk power system, 

but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, there is currently no 

emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit 

on the use of emergency engines for routine testing and 

maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those engines were not the 

focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did 

not make any changes to the requirements for those engines as 

part of the 2010 amendments. For consistency, the EPA is now 

also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to 

operate their engines as part of a demand response program as 

well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for 

maintenance and testing. 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

CI and SI engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for 

engines subject to the RICE NESHAP. The NSPS regulations 
Page 40 of 197 

currently do not include such an allowance for emergency demand 

response operation. For the reasons discussed in section II.B of 

this preamble as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to allow 

stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand 

response programs and remain being considered emergency units, 

and for consistency across engine regulations, the EPA is 

proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under 

the NSPS regulations. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, to specify that emergency engines may 

participate in demand response programs for up to 100 hours per 

year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of 

the emergency engines. 

b. Peak Shaving and other Non-emergency Use as Part of a 

Financial Arrangement. In addition to the changes the EPA is 

proposing related to emergency demand response operation, the 

EPA is also including a further provision for owners and 

operators of existing stationary emergency RICE located at area 

sources for the reasons discussed in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble. Paragraph §63.6640(f) currently allows owners and 

operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate their engine 

for 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations. As currently 

written, the 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations 
Page 41 of 197 

cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for a 

facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply 

power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity; 

except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines 

may operate the engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as 

part of an emergency demand response program. As discussed, the 

15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to participate 

in emergency demand response programs is being increased to 100 

hours per year, but will also include hours spent towards 

maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the emergency 

engines. However, additionally, the EPA is also proposing that 

stationary emergency engines located at area sources be 

permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently 

allowed under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards 

any non-emergency operation, including operation as part of a 

financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving 

allowance would expire in 2017. The EPA is specifying that the 

power can only be used at the facility or towards the local 

system, and the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as 

part of a program with the local distribution system operator. 

The EPA is also clarifying that an engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak shaving, will be considered a 
Page 42 of 197 

non-emergency engine and subject to the requirements for nonemergency engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources

1. Background 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the requirements that 

apply to existing stationary non-emergency 4 stroke SI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP emissions, 

which are generally natural gas fired engines. Currently, the 

RICE NESHAP requires owners and operators of such engines to 1) 

either meet a CO concentration limit of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 

percent O2 or reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or more, if 

the engines are 4SLB; and 2) to meet a formaldehyde 

concentration limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, if the engines are 

4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects that the standards would be 

met using aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 4SLB engines 

and NSCR for 4SRB engines. In addition to these emission 

requirements, owners and operators of existing stationary 4-

stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are also 

subject to monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

After the final requirements for existing stationary SI 

engines greater than 500 HP at area sources were published on 
Page 43 of 197 

August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0581), the American Petroleum 

Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582), the Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0584), and the 

Gas Processors Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0587) 

requesting that the EPA reconsider the requirements of the final 

rule. The petitioners expressed many similar concerns. As 

relevant to this rulemaking, petitioners stated that the EPA did 

not take into account the difference in population density and 

subsequently did not consider the difference in health impacts 

in remote versus more heavily populated locations. In the 

petitioners’ opinion, there should be less concern about engines 

that are located farther away from people; the petitioners 

believed that the EPA has substantial latitude in requiring less 

stringent standards for owners and operators of stationary 

engines in remote areas. 

 While the EPA does not share all of the views of the 

petitioners regarding the difference between engines based on 

their location, the EPA does believe that it is reasonable to 

create a subcategory of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP located in areas remote from human 

activity. Engines located in remote areas that are not close to 

significant human activity may be difficult to access, may not 

have electricity or communications, and may be unmanned most of 
Page 44 of 197 

the time. The costs of the emission controls, testing, and 

continuous monitoring requirements may be unreasonable when 

compared to the HAP emission reductions that would be achieved, 

considering that the engines are in sparsely populated areas. 

The EPA believes that establishing a subcategory for SI engines 

at area sources of HAP located in sparsely populated areas 

accomplishes the agency’s goals and is adequate in protecting 

public health. 

 The EPA is proposing to subcategorize sparsely populated 

engines using the existing DOT classification system for natural 

gas pipelines. This system classifies locations based on their 

distance to natural gas pipelines covered by the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration safety regulations. 

The DOT system defines a class location unit as an onshore area 

that extends 220 yards or 200 meters on either side of the 

centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) length of 

natural gas pipeline. The DOT approach further classifies 

pipeline locations into Class 1 through Class 4 locations based 

on the number of buildings intended for human occupancy. A Class 

1 location is defined as an offshore area or any class location 

unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry have 

indicated to the EPA that the DOT system is well-established and 

there would be substantial overlap between engines on natural 
Page 45 of 197 

gas pipelines affected by the rule and covered by the DOT 

pipeline classification system. Incorporating this approach 

would also create harmonization between the EPA and DOT and 

would reduce the implementation and enforcement burden for 

states. Implementation for affected sources would also be less 

burdensome because the system is already in place and used by 

the natural gas pipeline industry and covers the majority of 

these engines. Stakeholders have indicated they are required to 

review the class location status of natural gas pipeline 

segments annually. The EPA believes this approach is reasonable 

for defining the subcategory of remote engines for those engines 

that are associated with natural gas pipelines. For engines 

along hazardous liquid pipelines and those engines not 

associated with pipelines, the EPA is using similar criteria. An 

engine would be considered to be in sparsely populated areas if 

within 0.25 mile radius of the engine there are 5 or fewer 

buildings intended for human occupancy. 

The EPA is proposing management practices as generally 

available control technologies for existing stationary SI 4SLB 

and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines located in sparsely 

populated areas. Given the remote location of the engines from 

human activity, the EPA believes that it is appropriate not to 

include requirements that would necessitate aftertreatment and 

extensive testing and monitoring. The EPA has previously 

Deleted: both

Deleted: and

Deleted: 

Deleted: . For
Page 46 of 197 

estimated that the costs of oxidation catalyst for existing 4SLB 

and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources are $310 and $150 

million, for capital and annual costs, respectively. The capital 

and annual costs of the RICE NESHAP for existing 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP at area sources would be $30 million and 

$12 million, respectively, if these proposed amendments are 

incorporated into the rule. Creating a subcategory of these 

engines for the ones located in sparsely populated areas and not 

mandating emission controls would significantly reduce the cost 

of the rule for such engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source nonemergency engines that are located in populated areas, the EPA 

is proposing an equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst that will have to be 

tested initially and annually to ensure that the catalyst is 

working properly and reducing emissions as required. In 

addition, these units will be required to have devices to shut 

down the engine if the catalyst is exposed to dangerous 

temperatures or have continuous monitoring equipment installed 

to record catalyst inlet temperatures. The EPA is proposing 

shorter test duration and less rigorous methods than currently 

required while still ensuring that HAP reductions remain at 

expected levels for these engines located in populated areas. 
Page 47 of 197 

The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed 

below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 Owners and operators of engines in sparsely populated 

areas would have to conduct a review of the surrounding area 

every 12 months to determine if the nearby population has 

changed. If the engine no longer meets the criteria for a 

sparsely populated area the owner and operator must within 1 

year comply with the emission standards specified below for 

populated areas. Owners and operators of existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB greater than 500 HP at area sources that are in 

sparsely populated areas as described above would be required to 

perform the following: 

 Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 

 Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary; 

and 

 Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) of the rule in order to extend the 

specified oil change requirement. The oil analysis must be 
Page 48 of 197 

performed at the same frequency specified for changing the oil 

in Table 2d of the rule. The analysis program must at a minimum 

analyze the following three parameters: Total Acid Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total Acid Number increases by 

more than 3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram from 

Total Acid Number of the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has 

changed by more than 20 percent from the viscosity of the oil 

when new; or percent water content (by volume) is greater than 

0.5. If all of these condemning limits are not exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If 

any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator 

must change the oil within 2 days of receiving the results of 

the analysis; if the engine is not in operation when the results 

of the analysis are received, the engine owner or operator must 

change the oil within 2 days or before commencing operation, 

whichever is later. The owner or operator must keep records of 

the parameters that are analyzed as part of the program, the 

results of the analysis, and the oil changes for the engine. The 

analysis program must be part of the maintenance plan for the 

engine. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB 

area source engines above 500 HP in sparsely populated areas 

would also have to operate and maintain the stationary RICE and 
Page 49 of 197 

aftertreatment control device (if any) according to the 

manufacturer's emission-related written instructions or develop 

their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent 

practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. 

 For engines in populated areas, i.e., existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP at area 

sources that are located on DOT Class 2 through Class 4 pipeline 

segments or, for engines not associated with pipelines, that do 

not meet the 0.25 mile radius with 5 or less buildings criteria, 

the EPA is proposing to adopt an equipment standard requiring 

the installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP emissions. Owners 

and operators of existing area source 4SLB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP in populated areas would be required to 

install an oxidation catalyst. Owners and operators of existing 

area source 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in 

populated areas would be required to install NSCR. Owners and 

operators must conduct an initial test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions 

or a CO concentration level of 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2, if the 

engine is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and operators must 

conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO reduction or a 30 
Page 50 of 197 

percent THC reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB engine. The 

initial test must consist of three test runs. Each test run must 

be of at least 15 minute duration, except that each test run 

conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ must consist of one measurement cycle as defined by 

the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase 

measurement. To measure CO, emission sources must use the CO 

methods already specified in subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The THC testing must 

be conducted using EPA Method 25A. 

 The owner or operator of both engine types must also use a 

high temperature shutdown device that detects if the catalyst 

inlet temperature is too high, or, alternatively, the owner or 

operator can monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously 

and maintain the temperature within the range specified in the 

rule. For 4SLB engines the catalyst inlet temperature must 

remain at or above 450°F and at or below 1,350°F. For 4SRB 

engines the temperature range must be greater than or equal to 

750°F and less than or equal to 1,250°F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in addition to the initial 

performance test conduct annual checks of the catalyst to ensure 

proper catalyst activity. The annual check of the catalyst must 

at a minimum consist of one 15-minute run using the methods 

discussed above, except that each test run conducted using the 
Page 51 of 197 

proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at 

least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. Owners and 

operators of 4SLB engines must demonstrate during the catalyst 

activity test that the catalyst achieves at least a 93 percent 

reduction in CO emissions or that the engine exhaust CO 

emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that their catalyst 

is reducing CO emissions by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively, that THC emissions are being reduced by at least 

30 percent during the catalyst activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do not exceed the levels 

required for the initial test or annual checks of the catalyst, 

then the catalyst is considered to be working properly. If the 

emissions exceed the specified pollutant levels in the rule, the 

exceedance(s) is/are not considered a violation, but the owner 

or operator would be required to shut down the engine and take 

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

the catalyst, as appropriate). A follow-up test must be 

conducted within 7 days of the engine being started up again to 

demonstrate that the emission levels are being met. If the 

retest shows that the emissions continue to exceed the specified 

levels, the stationary RICE must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the engine may not operate, except for 
Page 52 of 197 

purposes of start-up and testing, until the owner/operator 

demonstrates through testing that the emissions do not exceed 

the levels specified. 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP, the EPA required 

existing non-emergency CI engines above 300 HP to meet a 

standard of either 70 percent reduction of CO emissions or 49 

ppmvd CO, for engines between 300 and 500 HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for 

engines above 500 HP. The requirements also included testing and 

monitoring provisions. As with all requirements for existing 

engines in that rule, owners and operators were required to meet 

the requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the 

regulations (May 3, 2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for existing stationary 

CI engines, stakeholders from the agricultural industry in the 

San Joaquin Valley area of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these requirements on engines 

in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in San Joaquin Valley 

certified to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89 that were 

installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, 

stationary CI engines at area sources are existing if 

construction of the engine commenced prior to June 12, 2006. 
Page 53 of 197 

These 17 Tier 3 engines in the San Joaquin Valley, which were 

built to meet stringent emission standards, would not be able to 

comply with the applicable RICE NESHAP emission standards for 

existing engines without further testing and monitoring, and 

possible retrofit with further controls, due to differences in 

the emission standards and testing protocols in the RICE NESHAP 

versus the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. However, an 

identical engine certified to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 

standards for engines above 560 kilowatts (kW)) in 40 CFR part 

89 that was installed after June 12, 2006, would not have to be 

retrofit in order to comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI 

engines installed after June 12, 2006, at area sources of HAP 

are required to comply with the NSPS for stationary CI engines, 

which requires engines to be certified to the standards in 40 

CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as applicable. Thus, a 2006 

model year stationary CI engine installed after June 12, 2006, 

that is certified to the applicable standards would meet the 

requirements of the NESHAP without further controls or testing. 

While the EPA does not know if other certified Tier 3 engines 

besides these 17 engines in the San Joaquin Valley were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the same 

rationale should apply to any such engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 standards (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) are technologically stringent regulations 
Page 54 of 197 

and believes it is unnecessary to require further regulation of 

engines meeting these standards. Engines meeting the Tier 3 

standards typically employed emission control technologies such 

as combustion optimization and better fuel control to meet the 

Tier 3 standards. In order to address the concerns raised by the 

engine owners in the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA is proposing 

changes to amend the requirements for any certified Tier 3 (Tier 

2 for engines above 560 kW) stationary CI engine located at an 

area source and installed before June 12, 2006. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to specify that any existing certified Tier 

3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) CI engine that was installed 

before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This 

amendment would include any existing stationary Tier 3 (Tier 2 

for engines above 560 kW) certified CI engine located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

 Another concern brought to the EPA’s attention by the San 

Joaquin Valley agricultural industry is that due to state and 

local requirements in the San Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are regulated as existing 

sources under the NESHAP must be replaced in the next few years, 

only a short time after the emission standards for existing 

engines must be met. Specifically, the San Joaquin Valley APCD 

rule for internal combustion engines (Rule 4702) requires Tier 1 

and Tier 2 certified engines to meet Tier 4 standards by January 
Page 55 of 197 

1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date, but no later 

than June 1, 2018. The concern is that owners and operators of 

these engines would have to install aftertreatment by 2013 to 

meet the emission standards of the RICE NESHAP and then only a 

few years later be required to replace their engines per San 

Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are 

scheduled to be replaced under the local rule. The EPA has not 

identified any engines outside the San Joaquin Valley APCD area 

that are in the same or similar situation (i.e., required to be 

replaced shortly after the compliance date for existing 

engines), but the EPA does not preclude the possibility that 

there are such engines in other areas, and requests comment and 

information on other areas that may have similar concerns. 

 The EPA does not think it is appropriate to require 

emission controls on a stationary CI engine that is going to be 

retired only a short time after the rule goes into effect. 

Stationary CI engines would have to comply with this rule by May 

3, 2013, and owners of engines above 300 HP are expected to have 

to install aftertreatment on their engines in order to meet the 

emission standards. The EPA estimates that the one-time cost to 

equip a 500 HP stationary CI engine with the controls necessary 

to meet the emission standards under this rule is close to 

$14,000 and more than $3,000 on a yearly basis, not accounting 
Page 56 of 197 

for additional costs associated with monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting. These engines (equipped with 

aftertreatment) could end up being in operation for less than 2 

years or at most only 5 years before having to be replaced with 

a certified Tier 4 engine, as required by San Joaquin Valley 

District Rule 4702. It would not be reasonable to require the 

engine owner to invest in costly controls and monitoring 

equipment for an engine that will be replaced shortly after the 

installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions 

to address this concern. The EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements for existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

CI engines located at area sources that are greater than 300 HP 

that are subject to a state or local rule that requires the 

engine to be replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow these 

engines to meet management practices for a period of 2 years 

starting with the applicable May 3, 2013, compliance date. The 

EPA believes a period of 2 years is appropriate and provides 

owners enough time to replace their engines without mandating a 

possibly cost prohibitive requirement to change all of the 

engines in a short amount of time, while still requiring that 

replacement of the engine or a retrofit of the engine occur 

relatively quickly after the owner would have to comply with the 
Page 57 of 197 

NESHAP. The EPA is proposing that these engines be subject to 

management practices until May 3, 2015, after which time the CO 

emission standards discussed above (and that are in Table 2d of 

the rule) apply. The management practices include requirements 

for when to inspect and replace the engine oil and filter, air 

cleaner, hoses and belts. The complete details of which 

management practices are required are shown in Table 2d of the 

rule. Owners and operators of these existing stationary CI 

engines located at area sources of HAP emissions that intend to 

meet management practices rather than the emission limits prior 

to May 3, 2015, must submit a notification by March 3, 2013, 

stating that they intend to use this provision and identifying 

the state or local regulation that the engine is subject to. 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska

1. Background 

 The RICE NESHAP currently specifies less stringent 

requirements for existing non-emergency CI engines at area 

sources located in remote areas of Alaska. Remote areas are 

defined as those not accessible by the FAHS. The FAHS includes 

areas with year-round ferry service that are not on the 

contiguous road system. Under the current regulation, stationary 

non-emergency CI engines at area sources in areas of Alaska that 

are not accessible by the FAHS are subject to management 

practices as opposed to numerical emission standards. 
Page 58 of 197 

Following the publication of the final rule in 2010, the 

EPA received requests to expand the definition of remote areas 

of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that facilities in areas that 

are accessible by the FAHS but are not connected to the Alaska 

Railbelt grid face the same challenges as those in areas not 

accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska Railbelt Grid refers to the 

service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend 

from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These 

utilities are the Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach 

Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer 

Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, and the 

City of Seward Electric System. According to the stakeholders, 

one reason for broadening the definition of remote areas in 

Alaska is high energy costs, which provide a natural incentive 

to run CI engines as little as possible. The cost of energy is 

utilities’ greatest concern in Alaska. Also, the stakeholders 

indicated that extreme weather conditions in certain areas of 

Alaska is another reason for including additional areas in the 

definition of remote areas of Alaska. The climate issue is 

unique to remote areas of Alaska that experience some of the 

most extreme temperatures in the country. Heavy snowfall and 

high winds are not uncommon in several areas that are accessible 

by the FAHS. For instance, Copper Valley Electric Association 

(CVEA) is a utility accessible by the FAHS, but it includes 
Page 59 of 197 

areas that face the same challenges as other communities not 

accessible by the FAHS. The utility operates on an isolated grid 

and relies on diesel power generation. In one of CVEA’s 

territories, Valdez, Alaska, CVEA indicated that this area 

experiences brutal conditions and stated that Valdez is 

considered to have the greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) 

in any city of the United States. Also, winds at more than 100 

miles per hour are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, according to 

CVEA. Temperatures between 40 and 50 below zero are also not 

abnormal, which emphasizes the extreme reliance on power, CVEA 

asserted. Travel times and accessibility are issues on a regular 

basis, but can be additionally exacerbated due to severe 

weather, which in some cases may lead to avalanches and road 

closings. In particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, in the 

event of poor weather conditions and road closings, there are in 

many cases no alternate roads to travel on. Further, access to 

specific isolated sites can also be problematic in particular 

remote areas of Alaska and the problems are unique to Alaska 

because of the infrastructure and environment. For example, 

communities made the case that sources along the AMHS that are 

only accessible by the AMHS should be treated the same way as 

communities not accessible by the FAHS. The AMHS primarily 

serves passengers and vehicles, and is not intended for 

transporting goods. Therefore, the same methods used to bring in 
Page 60 of 197 

goods to communities not on the FAHS are the same as those 

Alaskan villages served only by the AMHS. Goods are typically 

brought in to remote communities by barge and this is another 

example of a scenario that is unique to Alaska. Other arguments 

for expanding the definition of remote areas of Alaska beyond 

those not accessible by the FAHS include very low population 

density in many other remote areas although accessible by the 

FAHS, and the fact that many of these areas are not connected to 

the electric grid and rely on back up diesel generation to 

support fluctuating renewable energy systems. The energy supply 

system is another area that is particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country where the majority of 

customers are connected to the grid. Therefore, for the reasons 

discussed, the EPA is proposing expansion of the remote area 

source category. This proposal is supported by the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and communities with 

whom the EPA has discussed this issue. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to expand the current definition of 

remote areas of Alaska to extend beyond areas that are not 

accessible by the FAHS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the FAHS and that meet 

all of the following criteria are also considered remote and 

subject to management practices under the rule: 
Page 61 of 197 

 The stationary CI engine is located in an area not 

connected to the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

 At least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine 

per year is used for residential purposes, and 

 The system capacity is less than 12 megawatts, or the 

engine is used exclusively for backup power for renewable 

energy and is used less than 500 hours per year on a 10-

year rolling average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the remote classification to 

engines that are used at least partially for residential 

purposes, where the impact of higher energy costs is of greatest 

concern. The classification is further limited to sources that 

are used infrequently as backup for renewable power, or that are 

at smaller capacity facilities, which are generally in more 

sparsely populated areas. 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions

 The EPA is making some minor corrections to the stationary 

engine rules to address miscellaneous issues. The EPA is making 

some minor revisions in the rules to correct mistakes in the 

current rules or to clarify the rules. The revisions are as 

follows: 

 Revising Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

to correct language requiring the pressure drop to be at 

plus or minus 10 percent 100 percent load for all engines. 
Page 62 of 197 

The engines that were regulated in 2010 are not subject to 

the load requirements and therefore the EPA is correcting 

these tables to make this clear. 

 Adding a footnote to Table 1b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ stating that sources can petition the Administrator 

for a different temperature range consistent with Table 2b 

of the rule. 

 Correcting rows 8 and 10 in Table 2d of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ to indicate that the requirements apply to 

non-emergency, non-black start stationary RICE greater than 

500 HP that are 4SLB and 4SRB that operate more than 24 

hours per year, as intended in the original rule. 

 Revising the language in §63.6625(b) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ that states “...in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section” to “in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section.” 

 Changing Tables 2c and 2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 

where it currently specifies to inspect air cleaner, to 

also specify that it must be replaced as necessary. 

 Revising §63.6620(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to 

indicate that testing must be conducted within plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load for stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at a major source (except 
Page 63 of 197 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE greater than 500 

HP located at a major source) that are subject to testing. 

 Specifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, the operating limitations (pressure drop and 

catalyst inlet temperature) in Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ do not have to be met during startup. 

 For consistency, and as provided in the original RICE 

NESHAP for other stationary RICE, clarifying in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ that the existing stationary RICE 

regulated in 2010 (i.e., engines constructed before June 

12, 2006 that are less than or equal to 500 HP located at 

major sources or engines located at area sources) must burn 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 

of the gross heat input on an annual basis in order to 

qualify as a landfill or digester gas engine under the 

rule. 

 Clarifying §60.4207(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII to 

specify that owners and operators of stationary CI engines 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that are subject to the 

subpart that use diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b), except owners 

and operators may use up any diesel fuel acquired prior to 

October 1, 2010, that does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 
Page 64 of 197 

 Adding appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which 

includes procedures that can be used for measuring CO 

emissions from existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE above 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that are 

complying with the emission limits in Table 2d of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

 Reinstating the footnotes for Table 2 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. The footnotes were inadvertently removed when 

the rule was amended on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37954). 

 Adding “part 60” in Table 4 of the NESHAP, in row 2 where 

it refers to 40 CFR appendix A. 

 Clarifying in §63.6625(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

that a continuous emission monitoring system is only 

required to be installed at the outlet of the control 

device for engines that are complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of CO. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that use gasoline. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 
Page 65 of 197 

in §60.4231(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are rich burn engines that use LPG. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(d) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are not gasoline engines or rich 

burn engines that use LPG. 

G. Compliance Date

 The EPA has received questions regarding whether the 

compliance dates for engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and 

this proposed reconsideration will be extended. Affected sources 

that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about 

having sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance 

date, which is May 3, 2013, for existing stationary CI RICE and 

October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with 

compliance in the event that the EPA does not finalize changes 

that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in 

this action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, 

and October 19, 2013, compliance dates, because there are many 

engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, the EPA notes that 

sources that are affected by the reconsideration and that may 

need additional time to install controls to comply with the 
Page 66 of 197 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to 

install controls, as specified in 40 CFR 63.6(i). 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimates that the rule with the proposed 

amendments incorporated will reduce emissions from existing 

stationary RICE as shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The 

emissions reductions the EPA previously estimated for the 2010 

amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown for comparison. 

Reductions are shown for the year 2013, which is the first year 

the final RICE NESHAP will be implemented for existing 

stationary RICE. 

Table 1. Summary of Reductions for Existing Stationary RICE 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 

in the year 2013 

2010 Final Rule 

2010 Final Rule with 

these Proposed 

Amendments

CI SI CI SI

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

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

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

NOx N/A 96,479 N/A 9,648 

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

 The EPA estimates that more than 900,000 stationary CI 

engines will be subject to the rule in total, but only a small 

number of stationary CI engines are affected by the proposed 

amendments in this action. It is estimated that approximately 
Page 67 of 197 

330,000 stationary SI engines will be subject to the rule in 

total; however, only a subset of stationary SI engines are 

affected by the proposed amendments in this action. The decrease 

in estimated reductions for SI engines is primarily due to 

proposed amendments to the requirements for existing 4SRB and 

4SLB SI engines larger than 500 HP at area sources of HAP that 

are in remote areas. Those engines were required by the 2010 

rule to meet emission limits that were expected to require the 

installation of aftertreatment to reduce emissions; under these 

proposed amendments, those engines are required to meet 

management practices that would not require the installation of 

aftertreatment. Further information regarding the estimated 

reductions of this final rule can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate any reductions 

associated with the minor changes to the NSPS for stationary CI 

and SI engines. 

B. What are the cost impacts?

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

cost of the original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The EPA 

estimates that with these proposed amendments incorporated the 

cost of the rule for existing stationary RICE will be as shown 

in Table 2 of this preamble. The costs the EPA previously 
Page 68 of 197 

estimated for the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown 

for comparison. 

Table 2. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary RICE

Engine 2010 Final Rule 2010 Final Rule with these 

Proposed Amendments 

Total Annual Cost

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

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

Total Capital Cost 

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

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

Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts of the 

proposed amendments, including the cost of the proposed 

amendments in 2010 dollars, can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate costs associated 

with the changes to the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines. 

The changes to the NSPS are minor and are not expected to impact 

the costs of those rules. 

C. What are the benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of 

these rules will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP 

as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including 

CO, NOx and VOC. NOx and VOC are precursors to PM2.5 (particles

smaller than 2.5 microns) and ozone. The criteria pollutant 

benefits are considered co-benefits for these rules. For these 
Page 69 of 197 

rules, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits 

associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from emission reductions 

of NOx and directly emitted PM2.5. 

The EPA previously estimated that the monetized co-benefits 

in 2013 of the stationary CI NESHAP would be $940 million to 

$2,300 million (2008 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$850 million to $2,100 million (2008 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate.5

 For stationary SI engines, EPA previously 

estimated that the monetized co-benefits in 2013 would be $510 

million to $1,200 million (2009 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $460 million to $1,100 million (2009 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate.6

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

emission reductions of the rules. In addition to revising the 

anticipated emission reductions, we have also updated the 

methodology used to calculate the co-benefits to be consistent 

with methods used in more recent rulemakings, which is 

summarized below and discussed in more detail in the Regulatory 

 

5

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Compression Ignition 

Engines NESHAP: Final Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

February. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/CIRICENESHAPRIA2-17-

0cleanpublication.pdf. 

6

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE 

NESHAP: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/riceriafinal.pdf. 
Page 70 of 197 

Impact Analysis (RIA). We estimate the monetized co-benefits of 

the proposed amendments of the CI NESHAP in 2013 to be $770 

million to $1,900 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate and $690 million to $1,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. For SI engines, we estimate the monetized 

co-benefits of the proposed amendments in 2013 to be $62 million 

to $150 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$55 million to $140 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates 

fall between these two estimates.7

 A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates for CI and SI engines at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 3 of this preamble. 

 

7

 Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter 

in the U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274. 
Page 71 of 197 

Table 3. Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Proposed 

Amendments to the NESHAP for Stationary CI and SI Engines 

(millions of 2010 dollars)a

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons per 

year) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(3 percent 

Discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7 percent 

Discount) 

Stationary CI Engines 

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

2,818 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Stationary SI Engines 

NOx 9,648 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 a

 All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded 

to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do 

not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or 

visibility impairment. 

b

 PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to 

Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2013 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order 

to meet these rules. To estimate human health co-benefits of 

these rules, the EPA used benefit-per-ton factors to quantify 

the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and monetized 

benefits based on changes in directly emitted PM2.5 and NOx 

emissions. These benefit-per-ton factors were derived using the 

general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and 
Page 72 of 197 

Hubbell (2009).8

 This approach uses a model to convert emissions 

of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes in human health associated 

with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 

emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

However, for these rules, we utilized source apportionment air 

quality modeling of emissions in the “Non-EGU Point other” 

category because we do not have modeling specifically for 

stationary engines.9

 We apply these national benefit-per-ton 

estimates calculated for this sector separately for directly 

emitted PM2.5 and NOx and multiply them by the corresponding 

emission reductions. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are 

generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors. More 

information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-ton 

estimates for this category is available in the technical 

support document, which is available in the docket. 

 

8

 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of 

location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 

health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health (2009) 2:169–176. 

9

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Technical support 

document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5

precursors from other point sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 
Page 73 of 197 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. The main PM2.5 precursors affected by these rules 

are directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX. Even though we assume that all 

fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit-perton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive 

population exposure. For example, directly emitted PM2.5 has a 

lower benefit-per-ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does 

not form as much PM2.5; thus, the exposure would be lower, and 

the monetized health benefits would be lower. 

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based 

both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments 

elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the 

uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and 

premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one 
Page 74 of 197 

based on the American Cancer Society cohort study10 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.11 In the RIA for this proposed 

amendments rule, which is available in the docket, we also 

include benefits estimates derived from the expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

The EPA strives to use the best available science to 

support our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation 

of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 

model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with 

reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this finding, we have 

conformed the previous threshold sensitivity analysis to the 

current state of the PM science by incorporating a new “Lowest 

Measured Level” (LML) assessment in the RIA accompanying these 

rules. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the 

level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, the 

EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to 

quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

 

10 Pope, et al., 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, 

and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

11 Laden, et al., 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and 

Critical Care Medicine 173: 667-672. 
Page 75 of 197 

Most of the estimated PM-related co-benefits for these 

rules would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are 

not available due to time or resource limitations, and thus, we 

are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each 

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the Pope, 

et al. (2002) study, 77 percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3

). Using the Laden, et al. (2006) study, 25 

percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

. 

It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in 

PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort 

studies. This fact is important, because, as we model avoided 

premature deaths among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we 

have lower confidence in levels below the LML for each study. 

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 
Page 76 of 197 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 

benefit analysis for these rules provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) RIA 

because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for these rules, and using a 

benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source of 

uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis12 provides an indication of the sensitivity of 

our results to various assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOx, ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for these 

proposed amendments, we include a qualitative assessment of 

 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Proposed 

amendments Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 

Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 
Page 77 of 197 

these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendments. 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is available in 

the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts?

The EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a result of these proposed 

amendments. 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its 

final decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects 

of this proposed rule from all interested parties. Whenever 

applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should be 

submitted to allow the EPA to make maximum use of the comments. 

The agency invites all parties to coordinate their data 

collection activities with the EPA to facilitate mutually 

beneficial and cost-effective data submissions. A 

redline/strikeout version of the complete NESHAP for stationary 

RICE, which shows the changes that are being proposed in this 

action, is available from the rulemaking docket. 

 The EPA is seeking specific comment on the proposal to 

temporarily allow stationary emergency engines located at area 
Page 78 of 197 

sources to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently allowed 

under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards any type 

of non-emergency operation, including peak shaving and nonemergency demand response if the peak shaving is done as part of 

a peak shaving (load management) program with the local 

distribution system operator. The EPA is proposing that the 

allowance be removed after April 16, 2017. 

The EPA recognizes that the electricity grid achieves 

demand response and grid stability with and without the use of 

emergency stationary RICE. Alternative approaches include 

reductions or shifts in energy use, electricity storage, 

distribution automation, microgrids, natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines, and grid-connected distributed generation, 

including non-emergency engines and combined heat and power. 

Many of these approaches can provide additional benefits, such 

as additional energy efficiency, lower costs, shorter 

electricity outage times, and better integration of renewable 

energy generation into the electricity grid. Several studies 

project a significant future potential for using less energy in 

homes, buildings, and industry during times of peak electricity 

demand. The EPA seeks comment on how these investments may 

affect the number of hours which emergency stationary RICE are 

needed in the future to address electricity peak shaving and 

grid stability. 
Page 79 of 197 

 The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on the 

proposed criteria for expanding the current definition of remote 

areas of Alaska beyond areas that are not accessible by the 

FAHS. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposed system 

capacity limitation of 12 megawatts and the alternative 500 hour 

cap on annual usage (based on a 10-year rolling average) are the 

appropriate criteria for distinguishing the areas of Alaska 

that, while accessible by the FAHS, have the same unique 

challenges as the areas that are not accessible by the FAHS. 

The EPA is also seeking information related to irrigation 

pump engine sizes. During the 2010 rulemaking, the EPA relied 

upon several sources to determine the potential number of 

irrigation engines that may be impacted by the rule. Using these 

sources, the EPA estimated that the vast majority of the 

existing irrigation engines were less than or equal to 300 HP. 

The EPA received several comments confirming this estimation. 

The EPA seeks comprehensive, nationwide information on the size 

of existing irrigation engines to either confirm or refute our 

understanding of existing irrigation engine sizes; this 

information will assist EPA in assessing the impacts of the 2010 

rule on existing irrigation engines. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 
Page 80 of 197 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the 

EPA prepared a RIA of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits, compliance costs and 

net benefits for the proposed amendments to the stationary CI 

engines NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is 

in Table 4 of this preamble. The summary for stationary SI 

engines is included in Table 5 of this preamble. 

Table 4. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary CI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance $373 $373 
Page 81 of 197 

Costsc

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

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

Table 5. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the Proposed Amendments to the Stationary SI 

Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance 

Costsc $115 $115 

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 
Page 82 of 197 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

For more information on the cost-benefit analysis, please 

refer to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection 

burden. This action does not impose an information collection 

burden because the agency is not requiring any additional 

recordkeeping, reporting, notification or other requirements in 

these proposed amendments. The changes being proposed in this 

action do not affect information collection, but include 

revisions to emission standards and other minor issues. However, 

the OMB has previously approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing regulations under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0548. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Page 83 of 197 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. The companies owning facilities with affected RICE can be 

grouped into small and large categories using SBA general size 

standard definitions. Size standards are based on industry 

classification codes (i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that each company uses to 

identify the industry or industries in which they operate. The 

SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment, 

annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for 
Page 84 of 197 

electricity generating units—EGUs) of the owning entity. These 

thresholds vary by industry and are evaluated based on the 

primary industry classification of the affected companies. In 

cases where companies are classified by multiple NAICS codes, 

the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the NAICS code with 

the highest employee or revenue size standard) was used. 

As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across 

several industries use affected CI and SI stationary RICE; 

therefore, a number of size standards are utilized in this 

analysis. For the 15 industries identified at the 6-digit NAICS 

code represented in this analysis, the employment size standard 

(where it applies) varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The 

annual sales standard (where it applies) is as low as 0.75 

million dollars and as high as 33.5 million dollars. In 

addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as 

having a total electric output of 4 million megawatt-hours (MWhr) in the previous fiscal year. The specific SBA size standard 

is identified for each affected industry within the industry 

profile to support this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of 
Page 85 of 197 

this action to all affected small entities across all industries 

affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of 

their sales is less than 2 percent according to the small entity 

analysis. We conclude that there is no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities for this rule. 

For more information on the small entity impacts associated 

with the rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small 

Business Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be 

found in the RIA for each of the rules affected by this action. 

Although the proposed reconsideration rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule 

on small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA 

took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small 

entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options and 

the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and 

reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, 

EPA proposes to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of 

area sources affected under each of the RICE rules with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
Page 86 of 197 

proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. The EPA is proposing management practices for 

certain existing engines located at area sources and is 

proposing amendments that will provide owners and operators with 

alternative and less expensive compliance demonstration methods. 

As a result of these proposed changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden associated with this 

rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The changes being proposed in this action by the 

agency will mostly affect stationary engine owners and operators 

and will not affect small governments. The proposed amendments 

will lead to a reduction in the cost burden. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
Page 87 of 197 

relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. This proposed action primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant economic costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA 

and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Page 88 of 197 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 

technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action reduces the 

burden of the rule on owners and operators of stationary engines 

by providing less burdensome compliance demonstration methods to 

owners and operators and greater flexibility in the operation of 

emergency engines. As a result of these proposed changes, the 

EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 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 
Page 89 of 197 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

 This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. While the agency identified two voluntary consensus standards 

as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use it in 

this rulemaking. The two candidate voluntary consensus 

standards, ISO 14965:2000(E) and EN 12619 (1999), identified 

would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The search and review results have been 

documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. 

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations
Page 90 of 197 

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. 

 The EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to determine 

whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the reconsideration of this final 

rule, as the EPA does not have specific information about the 

location of the stationary RICE affected by this rule. Although 

the EPA does not have specific engine location information, to 

the extent this rule achieves fewer reductions than the original 

rule, the decrease in reductions is primarily occurring in very 

remote areas that are sparsely populated. 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Page 91 of 197 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 60 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

40 CFR part 63 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 92 of 197

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart IIII—[amended]

1. Section 60.4207 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4207 What fuel requirements must I meet if I am an owner or 

operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine subject 

to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 (b) Beginning October 1, 2010, owners and operators of 

stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart with a displacement of 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that use diesel fuel must use 

diesel fuel that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel, except that any existing diesel fuel 

purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior to October 1, 2010, may 

be used until depleted. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 60.4211 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 
Page 93 of 197

§60.4211 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 
Page 94 of 197

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (f)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 
Page 95 of 197

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 3. Section 60.4219 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4219 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4211(f) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 
Page 96 of 197

requirements specified in §60.4211(f), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4211(f). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4211(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJJ—[amended]

4. Section 60.4231 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§60.4231 What emission standards must I meet if I am a 

manufacturer of stationary SI internal combustion engines or 

equipment containing such engines?
Page 97 of 197

* * * * * 

(b) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2), or manufactured on or after 

the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary 

ICE with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 

HP that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

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

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II engines, and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) that use gasoline 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 98 of 197

(c) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are 

manufactured on or after the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2) , 

or manufactured on or after the applicable date in 

§60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, to the 

certification emission standards and other requirements for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI internal 

combustion engine manufacturers must certify their emergency 

stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP that 

are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are manufactured on 

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

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, and other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 

CFR part 90. Stationary SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total 

displacement less than or equal to 1,000 cc that are rich burn 

engines that use LPG to the certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 99 of 197

(d) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

who choose to certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 75 KW (100 

HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use LPG and 

emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) under the voluntary 

manufacturer certification program described in this subpart 

must certify those engines to the certification emission 

standards for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers who 

choose to certify their emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP (except gasoline and rich burn 

engines that use LPG), must certify those engines to the Phase 1 

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cc (except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use LPG) to the certification emission standards for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. For stationary SI ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 

75 KW (100 HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use 

LPG and emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power 
Page 100 of 197

greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2011, manufacturers may choose to certify these 

engines to the standards in Table 1 to this subpart applicable 

to engines with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 

100 HP and less than 500 HP. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.4243 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4243 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary SI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(d) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 
Page 101 of 197

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (d)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(d)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 
Page 102 of 197

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 6. Section 60.4248 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4248 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Page 103 of 197

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4243(d). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4243(d)(2)(ii) or (iii). 
Page 104 of 197

* * * * * 

7. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 –- Requirements for 

Performance Tests 

As stated in §60.4244, you must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests within 10 percent of 100 

percent peak (or the highest achievable) load: 

For each Complying 

with the 

requirement 

to 

You must Using According 

to the 

following 

requirement

s 

1. 

Stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

demonstrati

ng 

compliance 

according 

to 

§60.4244. 

a. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of NOx

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for NOx

concentrati

on. 
Page 105 of 197

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for NOx 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

NOx at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

7E of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 
Page 106 of 197

b. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of CO in 

the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for CO 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 
Page 107 of 197

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for CO 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

CO at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

ASTM Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

c. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of VOC 

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A.

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 
Page 108 of 197

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005) a. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for VOC 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for VOC 

concentrati

on. 
Page 109 of 197

v. Measure 

VOC at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) 

Methods 25A 

and 18 of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 25A 

with the 

use of a 

methane 

cutter as 

described 

in 40 CFR 

1065.265, 

Method 18 

or 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

Ac,d, Method 

320 of 40 

CFR part 

63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

a

 ASTM D6522-00 is incorporated by reference; see 40 CFR 60.17. 

Also, you may petition the Administrator for approval to use 

alternative methods for portable analyzer. 

b

 You may use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, 

for measuring the O2 content of the exhaust gas as an alternative 

to EPA Method 3B. 

c

 You may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

provided that you conduct an adequate presurvey test prior to 

the emissions test, such as the one described in OTM 11 on EPA’s 

website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm11.pdf). d

 You may use ASTM D6420-99 (2004), Test Method for Determination 

of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry as an alternative to EPA Method 

18 for measuring total nonmethane organic. 

PART 63--[AMENDED]
Page 110 of 197

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart ZZZZ--[amended] 

9. Section 63.6585 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * * 

(f) The emergency stationary RICE listed in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (3) of this section are not subject to this 

subpart. The stationary RICE must meet the definition of an 

emergency stationary RICE in §63.6675, which includes operating 

according to the provisions specified in §63.6640(f). 

(1) Existing residential emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(2) Existing commercial emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(3) Existing institutional emergency stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP emissions. 

10. Section 63.6590 is amended by removing paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) through (viii). 

11. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Page 111 of 197

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations and other requirements no 

later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 

500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an 

existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements no 

later than May 3, 2013. If you have an existing stationary SI 

RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an existing 

stationary SI RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, 

you must comply with the applicable emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other requirements no later than 

October 19, 2013. 

* * * * * 

 12. Section 63.6602 is revised to read as follows: 
Page 112 of 197

§63.6602 What emission limitations and other requirements must 

I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions?

If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission 

limitations and other requirements in Table 2c to this subpart 

which apply to you. Compliance with the numerical emission 

limitations established in this subpart is based on the results 

of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the testing 

requirements and procedures in §63.6620 and Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

13. Section 63.6603 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (b); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6603 What emission limitations, operating limitations, and 

other requirements must I meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?

* * * * * 

 (b) If you own or operate an existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP that meets either paragraph (b)(1) or 
Page 113 of 197

(b)(2) of this section, you do not have to meet the numerical CO 

emission limitations specified in Table 2d of this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP that meet 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section must meet the 

management practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency 

CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in 

Table 2d of this subpart. 

 (1) The area source is located in an area of Alaska that is 

not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). 

 (2) The stationary RICE is located at an area source that 

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

section. 

 (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid. 

 (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes. 

 (iii) The generating capacity of the area source is less 

than 12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively 
Page 114 of 197

for backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 

hrs per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

 (c) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and that is 

subject to an enforceable state or local standard that requires 

the engine to be replaced no later than June 1, 2018, you may 

until May 3, 2015, choose to comply with the management 

practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d 

of this subpart instead of the applicable emission limitations 

in Table 2d, operating limitations in Table 2b, and crankcase 

ventilation system requirements in §63.6625(g). After May 3, 

2015, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 2d 

and operating limitations in Table 2b that apply for nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. After May 3, 2015, you must 

also comply with the crankcase ventilation system requirements 

in §63.6625(g). 

 (d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 3 (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 
Page 115 of 197

89.112, you may comply with the requirements under this part by 

meeting the requirements for Tier 3 engines (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) in 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII instead of the 

emission limitations and other requirements that would otherwise 

apply under this part for existing non-emergency CI RICE with a 

site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

 (e) An existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP must meet the definition of remote stationary 

RICE in §63.6675 on the initial compliance date for the engine, 

October 19, 2013, in order to be considered a remote stationary 

RICE under this subpart. Owners and operators of existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that meet the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in §63.6675 of this subpart 

as of October 19, 2013 must evaluate the status of their 

stationary RICE every 12 months. Owners and operators must keep 

records of the initial and annual evaluation of the status of 

the engine. If the evaluation indicates that the stationary RICE 

no longer meets the definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§63.6675 of this subpart, the owner or operator must comply with 

all of the requirements for existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP 
Page 116 of 197

located at area sources of HAP that are not remote stationary 

RICE within one year of the evaluation. 

 14. Section 63.6604 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.6604 What fuel requirements must I meet if I own or operate 

an existing stationary CI RICE?

If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 300 

brake HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder 

that uses diesel fuel, you must use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

Existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE located in Guam, 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, or at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) are exempt from the 

requirements of this section. 

15. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

 (a) You must be in compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in 

this subpart that apply to you at all times. 

* * * * * 
Page 117 of 197

16. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I 

use?

* * * * * 

(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this 

subpart. If you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE 

that is subject to performance testing, you do not need to start 

up the engine solely to conduct the performance test. Owners and 

operators of a non-operational engine can conduct the 

performance test when the engine is started up again. The test 

must be conducted at any load condition within plus or minus 10 

percent of 100 percent load for the stationary RICE listed in 

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

(1) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

(2) New non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than or equal to 250 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(3) New non-emergency 2SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions. 
Page 118 of 197

(4) New non-emergency CI stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

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

determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement: 

Where: 

Ci = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device inlet, 

Co = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device outlet, and 

R = percent reduction of CO, THC, or formaldehyde 

emissions. 

(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO), total 

hydrocarbons (THC), or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device to a dry basis and to 15 

percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide (CO2). If 

pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15 percent 

oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of oxygen 

concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is needed. 

Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

Ci-Co

Ci x 100 = R (Eq. 1) 
Page 119 of 197

(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel 

burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, 

Section 5.2, and the following equation: 

Where: 

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the 

ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero 

percent excess air. 

0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100. 

 Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu). 

Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu) 

(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting 

measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows: 

Where: 

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent. 

5.9 = 20.9 percent O2 - 15 percent O2, the defined O2

correction value, percent. 

(iii) Calculate the CO, THC, and formaldehyde gas 

concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using CO2 as follows: 

Fo = 

0.209 Fd

Fc (Eq. 2) 

XCO2 = 5.9

Fo (Eq. 3) 

Cadj = Cd

XCO2

%CO2

 (Eq. 4) 
Page 120 of 197

Where: 

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry basis, percent. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.6625 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b); 

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

d. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, collection, 

operation, and maintenance requirements?

 (a) If you elect to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 

of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS 

to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

If you are meeting a requirement to reduce CO emissions, the 

CEMS must be installed at both the inlet and outlet of the 

control device. If you are meeting a requirement to limit the 

concentration of CO, the CEMS must be installed at the outlet of 

the control device. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this 

subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 
Page 121 of 197

according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (6) An existing non-emergency, non-black start stationary 

RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions which combusts 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; 

* * * * * 

 (g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI engine greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not 

equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system, you must 

comply with either paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. Owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s 

specified maintenance requirements for operating and maintaining 

the open or closed crankcase ventilation systems and replacing 

the crankcase filters, or can request the Administrator to 

approve different maintenance requirements that are as 

protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines 

located at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) do not have to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. 
Page 122 of 197

 (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that 

prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted to the 

atmosphere, or 

 (2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control 

system that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering 

the exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates and metals. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.6630 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Adding paragraph (d); and 

d. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

 (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirement 

that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (d) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 

requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or 

more can demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde 

emission limit by testing for THC instead of formaldehyde. The 

testing must be conducted according to the requirements in Table 
Page 123 of 197

4 of this subpart. The average reduction of emissions of THC 

determined from the performance test must be equal to or greater 

than 30 percent. 

(e) The initial compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

three test runs. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
Page 124 of 197

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

19. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

a. Amending the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

d. Revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other 

requirements in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, 

and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according to 

methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (c) The annual compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 
Page 125 of 197

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

one test run. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 
Page 126 of 197

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

 (7) If the results of the annual compliance demonstration 

show that the emissions exceed the levels specified in Table 6 

of this subpart, the stationary RICE must be shut down as soon 

as safely possible, and appropriate corrective action must be 

taken (e.g., repairs, catalyst cleaning, catalyst replacement). 

The stationary RICE must be retested within 7 days of being 

restarted and the emissions must meet the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. If the retest shows that the emissions 

continue to exceed the specified levels, the stationary RICE 

must again be shut down as soon as safely possible, and the 

stationary RICE may not operate, except for purposes of startup 

and testing, until the owner/operator demonstrates through 

testing that the emissions do not exceed the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary RICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary RICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

RICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 
Page 127 of 197

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary RICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 
Page 128 of 197

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency RICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

emergency demand response for periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert 

Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity 

and Energy Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary RICE located at major sources of 

HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in nonemergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar 

year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response 

provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per 

year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak 

shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income 
Page 129 of 197

for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another 

entity. 

 (4) Existing emergency stationary RICE located at area 

sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in 

non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours 

per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency 

demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

 (i) Prior to April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for nonemergency situations can be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response to generate income for a facility, or 

to otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement 

with another entity if engines is operated as part of a peak 

shaving (load management program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is provided only to the facility 

itself or to support the local distribution system. 

 (ii) On or after April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part 

of a financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 20. Section 63.6645 is amended by adding a new paragraph 

(i) to read as follows: 
Page 130 of 197

§63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * * 

 (i) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and subject to an 

enforceable state or local standard requiring engine replacement 

and you intend to meet management practices rather than emission 

limits, as specified in §63.6603(c), you must submit a 

notification by March 3, 2013, stating that you intend to use 

the provision in §63.6603(c) and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

21. Section 63.6675 is amended by: 

 a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Alaska 

Railbelt Grid;

b. Revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE; 

and 

c. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Remote

stationary RICE to read as follows. 

§63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

 Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six 

regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to 

Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden 

Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; 
Page 131 of 197

Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward 

Electric System. 

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets all of the 

criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition. All 

emergency stationary RICE must comply with the requirements 

specified in §63.6640(f) in order to be considered emergency 

stationary RICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

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

to be an emergency stationary RICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary RICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary RICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump 

water in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary RICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §63.6640(f). 
Page 132 of 197

 (3) The stationary RICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§63.6640(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) and §63.6640(f)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Remote stationary RICE means stationary RICE meeting any of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Stationary RICE located in an offshore area that is 

beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the 

coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the 

open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of 

inland waters. 

 (2) Stationary RICE located on a pipeline segment that 

meets both of the criteria in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this 

definition. 

(i) A pipeline segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended 

for human occupancy within 220 yards (200 meters) on either side 

of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) 

length of pipeline. Each separate dwelling unit in a multiple 

dwelling unit building is counted as a separate building 

intended for human occupancy. 

(ii) The pipeline segment does not lie within 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside 

area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or 
Page 133 of 197

other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. The days and weeks need not be consecutive. The building 

or area is considered occupied for a full day if it is occupied 

for any portion of the day. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (2), the term pipeline 

segment means all parts of those physical facilities through 

which gas moves in transportation, including but not limited to 

pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attached to pipe, 

compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, 

delivery stations, holders, and fabricated assemblies. 

Stationary RICE located within 50 yards (46 m) of the pipeline 

segment providing power for equipment on a pipeline segment are 

part of the pipeline segment. Transportation of gas means the 

gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or 

the storage of gas. A building is intended for human occupancy 

if its primary use is for a purpose involving the presence of 

humans. 

(3) Stationary RICE that are not located on natural gas

pipelines and that have 5 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy within a 0.25 mile radius around the engine. 

* * * * * 

 22. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 
Page 134 of 197

Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

Existing, New, and Reconstructed SI 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6603, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must 

comply with the following operating limitations for existing, 

new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 

1. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and using NSCR; 

 

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 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 750°F and less than or 

equal to 1250°F.1
Page 135 of 197

2. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and not using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and not using NSCR. 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 23. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

New and Reconstructed 2SLB and CI Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, New and 

Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a Major 

Source of HAP Emissions, Existing CI Stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and Existing 4SLB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located at an Area 

Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6603, 63.6630, and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following operating limitations for new 

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

a major source of HAP emissions; new and reconstructed 4SLB 

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

emissions; and existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP:

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 
Page 136 of 197

1. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and using an 

oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water at 

100 percent load plus or minus 

10 percent from the pressure 

drop across the catalyst that 

was measured during the initial 

performance test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1

2. Existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and 

using an oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water 

from the pressure drop across 

the catalyst that was measured 

during the initial performance 

test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1
Page 137 of 197

3. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and not 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and not using an 

oxidation catalyst 

and 

existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not 

using an oxidation catalyst 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 24. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a Major Source 

of HAP Emissions and Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 
Page 138 of 197

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6602, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following requirements for existing compression 

ignition stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP 

emissions and existing spark ignition stationary RICE ≤500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following requirement, 

except during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Emergency 

stationary CI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

CI RICE.1

 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

Minimize the 

engine’s time spent 

at idle and minimize 

the engine’s startup 

time at startup to a 

period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the 

engine, not to 

exceed 30 minutes, 

after which time the 

non-startup emission 

limitations apply.3

 

2. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE <100 HP. 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

3. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

100<HP<300 HP. 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 230 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. 
Page 139 of 197

4. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 49 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

5. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 23 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

6. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

SI RICE.1

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

7. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP 

that are not 

2SLB stationary 

RICE. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 1,440 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3
Page 140 of 197

8. NonEmergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 4,320 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

9. Nonemergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 225 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

10. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 47 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

11. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust 

to 10.3 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2

12. Nonemergency, nonblack start 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 which 

combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 177 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

work practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c 

of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the 
Page 141 of 197

required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law, the work practice can be 

delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law has abated. The work practice 

should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency 

has ended or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or 

local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform 

the work practice on the schedule required and the federal, 

state or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.

2

Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart. 

3 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

 25. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6603 and 63.6640, you must comply with the 

following requirements for existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following 

requirement, except 

during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

<300 HP 

 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

Minimize the engine’s 

time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s 

startup time at startup 

to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the engine, 

not to exceed 30 

minutes, after which 

time the non-startup 

emission limitations 

apply. 
Page 142 of 197

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

2. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more. 

3. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more.

4. Emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

and black start 

stationary CI 

RICE2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 143 of 197

5. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE; black start 

stationary SI 

RICE; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year; 

non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

6. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

2SLB stationary 

RICE 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 4,320 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 144 of 197

7. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

8. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

to reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 145 of 197

9. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

10. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install NSCR to 

reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 146 of 197

11. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

stationary RICE 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 1 Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart. 

2 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

management practice requirements on the schedule required in 

Table 2d of this subpart, or if performing the management 

practice on the required schedule would otherwise pose an 

unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the 

management practice can be delayed until the emergency is over 

or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law has 

abated. The management practice should be performed as soon as 

practicable after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable 

risk under federal, state, or local law has abated. Sources must 

report any failure to perform the management practice on the 

schedule required and the federal, state or local law under 

which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 

 26. 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: 
Page 147 of 197

For each... Complying with the 

requirement to... 

You must...

1. New or 

reconstructed 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources; new 

or reconstructed 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP 

located at major 

sources; and new 

or reconstructed 

CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources. 

Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

2. 4SRB stationary 

RICE ≥5,000 HP 

located at major 

sources. 

Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

3. Stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources and 

new or 

reconstructed 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at major sources. 

Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in 

the stationary 

RICE exhaust 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

4. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

3 years, whichever 

comes first. 

5. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

5 years, whichever 

comes first. 

1 After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 
Page 148 of 197

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

 27. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

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) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

(incorpo

rated by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14). 

(a) 

Measurements 

to determine 

O2 must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for CO 

concentration. 

ii. 

Measure 

the CO at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) ASTM 

D6522-00 

(2005)a,b

(incorpo

ra-ted 

by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14) 

(a) The CO 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 
Page 149 of 197

or 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A. 

2. 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE 

a. reduce 

formaldehyd

e 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 

concentratio

n must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 
Page 150 of 197

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

content 

at the 

inlet and 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device; 

and 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 

iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the 

formaldeh

yde 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

formaldehyde at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), 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. 
Page 151 of 197

 iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the THC 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

THC at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

25A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

(a) THC 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

3. 

Stationary 

RICE 

a. limit 

the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the 

stationary 

RICE 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

and 

(1) 

Method 1 

or 1A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

§63.7(d)

(1)(i) 

(a) if using 

a control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must be 

located at 

the outlet 

of the 

control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentra

tion of 

the 

stationar

y RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(1) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)

. 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

O2 concentration must be 

made at the 

same time 

and location 

as the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentration. 

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 
Page 152 of 197

content 

of the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentratio

n. 

iv. 

Measure 

formaldehyde at 

the 

exhaust 

of the 

stationary RICE; 

or 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), the 

percent 

R must 

be 

greater 

than or 

equal to 

70 and 

less 

than or 

equal to 

130. 

(a) 

Formaldehyde 

concentratio

n 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 

(1) 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

(a) CO 

concentratio

n must be at 

15 percent 
Page 153 of 197

of the 

stationary RICE. 

60, 

appendix 

A, ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

, 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03. 

O2, dry 

basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

a

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) from at least one 

of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-

2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb 

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to 

test both CI and SI stationary RICE. 

b

You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. 

c

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the 

following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or 

University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48106. 

 28. 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 . . . 
Page 154 of 197

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and using 

oxidation catalyst, 

and using a CPMS 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 155 of 197

2. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, using oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test.

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 
Page 156 of 197

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

4. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and not using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 157 of 197

5. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, and 

using a CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

both the inlet and 

outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

reduction of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 equals or 

exceeds the 

required percent 

reduction. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance 

is based on the 

average percent 

reduction achieved 

during the 4-hour 

period. 
Page 158 of 197

6. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and using a 

CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

the outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

concentration of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 is less 

than or equal to 

the CO emission 

limitation. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance is 

based on the 

average 

concentration 

measured during the 

4-hour period. 

7. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 
Page 159 of 197

percent reduction, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than 30 

percent; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

8. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction; 

and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 
Page 160 of 197

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

9. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. The average 

formaldehyde 

concentration, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

10. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

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 
Page 161 of 197

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

11. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions. 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable, percent 

reduction. 

12. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust. 

i. The average 

formaldehyde or CO 

concentration, as 

applicable, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

or CO emission 

limitation, as 

applicable. 

13. Existing nonemergency 4SLB a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. You have 

conducted an 
Page 162 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

 initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350°F. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. You have 

conducted an 

initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 
Page 163 of 197

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250°F. 

 29. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations, Work Practices, and 

Management Practices 

As stated in §63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations and work or management 

practices as required by the following: 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . 

. 

You must 

demonstrate 

continuous 

compliance by 

. . . 

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

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 achieveda

; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 164 of 197

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

2. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for CO to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO 

percent reduction 

is achieveda

; 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 
Page 165 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

a CEMS 

i. Collecting the 

monitoring data 

according to 

§63.6625(a), 

reducing the 

measurements to 1-

hour averages, 

calculating the 

percent reduction 

or concentration of 

CO emissions 

according to 

§63.6620; and 

ii. Demonstrating 

that the catalyst 

achieves the 

required percent 

reduction of CO 

emissions over the 

4-hour averaging 

period, or that the 

emission remain at 

or below the CO 

concentration 

limit; and 

iii. Conducting an 

annual RATA of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, as 

well as daily and 

periodic data 

quality checks in 

accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix F, 
Page 166 of 197

procedure 1. 

4. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

5. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 
Page 167 of 197

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

6. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE with a brake 

HP ≥5,000 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

the required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction 

is achieved, or to 

demonstrate that 

the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

performance test is 

equal to or greater 

than 30 percent.a

7. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 168 of 197

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

8. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 169 of 197

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

9. Existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

<100 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

≤300 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary SI RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis, existing 

non-emergency 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

a. Work or 

Management 

practices. 

i. Operating and 

maintaining the 

stationary RICE 

according to the 

manufacturer’s 

emission-related 

operation and 

maintenance 

instructions; 

or 

ii. Develop and 

follow your own 

maintenance plan 

which must provide 

to the extent 

practicable for the 

maintenance and 

operation of the 

engine in a manner 

consistent with 

good air pollution 

control practice 

for minimizing 

emissions. 
Page 170 of 197

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year, and 

existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

are remote 

stationary RICE. 

10. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 171 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

11. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 172 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

12. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 173 of 197

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

13. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 174 of 197

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2; and 

either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 
Page 175 of 197

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350° F. 

15. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more;

and either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250° F. 
Page 176 of 197

a

After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

30. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports 

As stated in §63.6650, you must comply with the following 

requirements for reports: 

For each . . 

. 

You must 

submit a . . 

. 

The report must 

contain . . . 

You must submit 

the report . . . 

1. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary 

RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency 

4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

Compliance 

report 

a. If there are 

no deviations 

from any 

emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations that 

apply to you, a 

statement that 

there were no 

deviations from 

the emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations 

during the 

reporting 

period. If there 

were no periods 

during which the 

CMS, including 

CEMS and CPMS, 

was out-ofcontrol, as 

specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), a 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) for engines 

that are not 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations; and 

ii. Annually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(6)-

(9) for engines 

that are limited 

use stationary 

RICE subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations. 
Page 177 of 197

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >300 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP; new 

or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; and 

new or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

4SLB 

stationary 

RICE 

250≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP 

statement that 

there were not 

periods during 

which the CMS 

was out-ofcontrol during 

the reporting 

period; or 

b. If you had a 

deviation from 

any emission 

limitation or 

operating 

limitation 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(d). If 

there were 

periods during 

which the CMS, 

including CEMS 

and CPMS, was 

out-of-control, 

as specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), the 

information in 

§63.6650(e); or 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

c. If you had a 

malfunction 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(c)(4). 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

2. New or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE that 

combusts 

landfill gas 

or digester 

gas 

equivalent to 

Report a. The fuel flow 

rate of each 

fuel and the 

heating values 

that were used 

in your 

calculations, 

and you must 

demonstrate that 

the percentage 

i. Annually, 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650. 
Page 178 of 197

10 percent or 

more of the 

gross heat 

input on an 

annual basis 

of heat input 

provided by 

landfill gas or 

digester gas, is 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis; 

and 

b. The operating 

limits provided 

in your 

federally 

enforceable 

permit, and any 

deviations from 

these limits; 

and 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

c. Any problems 

or errors 

suspected with 

the meters. 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

3. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP that 

are not 

remote 

stationary 

RICE and that 

operate more 

than 24 hours 

per calendar 

year 

Compliance 

report 

a. The results 

of the annual 

compliance 

demonstration, 

if conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period. 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) 

 31. Appendix A to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is added to read 

as follows: 
Page 179 of 197

Appendix A 

Protocol for Using an Electrochemical Analyzer to Determine 

Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Certain Engines 

1.0 Scope and Application. What is this Protocol? 

This protocol is a procedure for using portable electrochemical 

(EC) cells for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) 

concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled emissions from 

existing stationary 4-stroke lean burn and 4-stroke rich burn 

reciprocating internal combustion engines as specified in the 

applicable rule. 

1.1 Analytes. What does this protocol determine? 

This protocol measures the engine exhaust gas concentrations of 

carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). 

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity

Carbon monoxide (CO) 630-08-0 Minimum detectable 

limit should be 2 

percent of the 

nominal range or 1 

ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

Oxygen (O2) 7782-44-7 

1.2 Applicability. When is this protocol acceptable? 

This protocol is applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Because of inherent cross sensitivities of EC cells, you must 

not apply this protocol to other emissions sources without 

specific instruction to that effect. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. How good must my collected data be? 
Page 180 of 197

Refer to Section 13 to verify and document acceptable analyzer 

performance. 

1.4 Range. What is the targeted analytical range for this 

protocol? 

The measurement system and EC cell design(s) conforming to this 

protocol will determine the analytical range for each gas 

component. The nominal ranges are defined by choosing up-scale 

calibration gas concentrations near the maximum anticipated flue 

gas concentrations for CO and O2, or no more than twice the 

permitted CO level. 

1.5 Sensitivity. What minimum detectable limit will this 

protocol yield for a particular gas component? 

The minimum detectable limit depends on the nominal range and 

resolution of the specific EC cell used, and the signal to noise 

ratio of the measurement system. The minimum detectable limit 

should be 2 percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

2.0 Summary of Protocol 

In this protocol, a gas sample is extracted from an engine 

exhaust system and then conveyed to a portable EC analyzer for 

measurement of CO and O2 gas concentrations. This method provides 

measurement system performance specifications and sampling 

protocols to ensure reliable data. You may use additions to, or 

modifications of vendor supplied measurement systems (e.g., 
Page 181 of 197

heated or unheated sample lines, thermocouples, flow meters, 

selective gas scrubbers, etc.) to meet the design specifications 

of this protocol. Do not make changes to the measurement system 

from the as-verified configuration (Section 3.12). 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Measurement System. The total equipment required for the 

measurement of CO and O2 concentrations. The measurement system 

consists of the following major subsystems: 

3.1.1 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or digital 

recorder for logging measurement data from the analyzer output. 

You may record measurement data from the digital data display 

manually or electronically.

3.1.2 Electrochemical (EC) Cell. A device, similar to a fuel 

cell, used to sense the presence of a specific analyte and 

generate an electrical current output proportional to the 

analyte concentration.

3.1.3 Interference Gas Scrubber. A device used to remove or 

neutralize chemical compounds that may interfere with the 

selective operation of an EC cell.

3.1.4 Moisture Removal System. Any device used to reduce the 

concentration of moisture in the sample stream so as to protect 

the EC cells from the damaging effects of condensation and to 

minimize errors in measurements caused by the scrubbing of 

soluble gases.
Page 182 of 197

3.1.5 Sample Interface. The portion of the system used for one 

or more of the following: sample acquisition; sample transport; 

sample conditioning or protection of the EC cell from any 

degrading effects of the engine exhaust effluent; removal of 

particulate matter and condensed moisture. 

3.2 Nominal Range. The range of analyte concentrations over 

which each EC cell is operated (normally 25 percent to 150 

percent of up-scale calibration gas value). Several nominal 

ranges can be used for any given cell so long as the calibration 

and repeatability checks for that range remain within 

specifications. 

3.3 Calibration Gas. A vendor certified concentration of a 

specific analyte in an appropriate balance gas. 

3.4 Zero Calibration Error. The analyte concentration output 

exhibited by the EC cell in response to zero-level calibration 

gas. 

3.5 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference 

between the analyte concentration exhibited by the EC cell and 

the certified concentration of the up-scale calibration gas. 

3.6 Interference Check. A procedure for quantifying analytical 

interference from components in the engine exhaust gas other 

than the targeted analytes. 

3.7 Repeatability Check. A protocol for demonstrating that an EC 

cell operated over a given nominal analyte concentration range 
Page 183 of 197

provides a stable and consistent response and is not 

significantly affected by repeated exposure to that gas. 

3.8 Sample Flow Rate. The flow rate of the gas sample as it 

passes through the EC cell. In some situations, EC cells can 

experience drift with changes in flow rate. The flow rate must 

be monitored and documented during all phases of a sampling run. 

3.9 Sampling Run. A timed three-phase event whereby an EC cell’s 

response rises and plateaus in a sample conditioning phase, 

remains relatively constant during a measurement data phase, 

then declines during a refresh phase. The sample conditioning 

phase exposes the EC cell to the gas sample for a length of time 

sufficient to reach a constant response. The measurement data 

phase is the time interval during which gas sample measurements 

can be made that meet the acceptance criteria of this protocol. 

The refresh phase then purges the EC cells with CO-free air. The 

refresh phase replenishes requisite O2 and moisture in the 

electrolyte reserve and provides a mechanism to de-gas or desorb 

any interference gas scrubbers or filters so as to enable a 

stable CO EC cell response. There are four primary types of 

sampling runs: pre- sampling calibrations; stack gas sampling; 

post-sampling calibration checks; and measurement system 

repeatability checks. Stack gas sampling runs can be chained 

together for extended evaluations, providing all other 

procedural specifications are met. 
Page 184 of 197

3.10 Sampling Day. A time not to exceed twelve hours from the 

time of the pre-sampling calibration to the post-sampling 

calibration check. During this time, stack gas sampling runs can 

be repeated without repeated recalibrations, providing all other 

sampling specifications have been met. 

3.11 Pre-Sampling Calibration/Post-Sampling Calibration Check.

The protocols executed at the beginning and end of each sampling 

day to bracket measurement readings with controlled performance 

checks. 

3.12 Performance-Established Configuration. The EC cell and 

sampling system configuration that existed at the time that it 

initially met the performance requirements of this protocol. 

4.0 Interferences.

When present in sufficient concentrations, NO and NO2 are two gas 

species that have been reported to interfere with CO 

concentration measurements. In the likelihood of this 

occurrence, it is the protocol user’s responsibility to employ 

and properly maintain an appropriate CO EC cell filter or 

scrubber for removal of these gases, as described in Section 

6.2.12.

5.0 Safety. [Reserved]

6.0 Equipment and Supplies.

6.1 What equipment do I need for the measurement system? 
Page 185 of 197

The system must maintain the gas sample at conditions that will 

prevent moisture condensation in the sample transport lines, 

both before and as the sample gas contacts the EC cells. The 

essential components of the measurement system are described 

below. 

6.2 Measurement System Components. 

6.2.1 Sample Probe. A single extraction-point probe constructed 

of glass, stainless steel or other non-reactive material, and of 

length sufficient to reach any designated sampling point. The 

sample probe must be designed to prevent plugging due to 

condensation or particulate matter. 

6.2.2 Sample Line. Non-reactive tubing to transport the effluent 

from the sample probe to the EC cell. 

6.2.3 Calibration Assembly (optional). A three-way valve 

assembly or equivalent to introduce calibration gases at ambient 

pressure at the exit end of the sample probe during calibration 

checks. The assembly must be designed such that only stack gas 

or calibration gas flows in the sample line and all gases flow 

through any gas path filters. 

6.2.4 Particulate Filter (optional). Filters before the inlet of 

the EC cell to prevent accumulation of particulate material in 

the measurement system and extend the useful life of the 

components. All filters must be fabricated of materials that are 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 
Page 186 of 197

6.2.5 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump to provide undiluted sample 

gas to the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the 

response time of the measurement system. If located upstream of 

the EC cells, the pump must be constructed of a material that is 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.8 Sample Flow Rate Monitoring. An adjustable rotameter or 

equivalent device used to adjust and maintain the sample flow 

rate through the analyzer as prescribed. 

6.2.9 Sample Gas Manifold (optional). A manifold to divert a 

portion of the sample gas stream to the analyzer and the 

remainder to a by-pass discharge vent. The sample gas manifold 

may also include provisions for introducing calibration gases 

directly to the analyzer. The manifold must be constructed of a 

material that is non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.10 EC cell. A device containing one or more EC cells to 

determine the CO and O2 concentrations in the sample gas stream. 

The EC cell(s) must meet the applicable performance 

specifications of Section 13 of this protocol. 

6.2.11 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or 

digital recorder to make a record of analyzer output data. The 

data recorder resolution (i.e., readability) must be no greater 

than 1 ppm for CO; 0.1 percent for O2; and one degree (either o

C 

or o

F) for temperature. Alternatively, you may use a digital or 
Page 187 of 197

analog meter having the same resolution to observe and manually 

record the analyzer responses. 

6.2.12 Interference Gas Filter or Scrubber. A device to remove 

interfering compounds upstream of the CO EC cell. Specific 

interference gas filters or scrubbers used in the performanceestablished configuration of the analyzer must continue to be 

used. Such a filter or scrubber must have a means to determine 

when the removal agent is exhausted. Periodically replace or 

replenish it in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

6.2.13 EC Cell Temperature Device. A temperature measurement 

device (e.g., thermocouple, thermistor or equivalent) to monitor 

EC cell temperature. The temperature may be monitored within or 

at the surface of a cell, or in close proximity to the cells so 

as to indicate the operating temperature of the cells. Do not 

operate the analyzer outside the manufacturer’s recommended 

operating temperature range.

7.0 Reagents and Standards. What calibration gases are needed?

7.1 Calibration Gases. CO calibration gases for the EC cell must 

be CO in nitrogen or CO in a mixture of nitrogen and O2. Use CO 

calibration gases with labeled concentration values certified by 

the manufacturer to be within ± 5 percent of the label value. 

Dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) is acceptable for calibration 
Page 188 of 197

of the O2 cell. If needed, any lower percentage O2 calibration 

gas must be a mixture of O2 in nitrogen. 

7.1.1 Up-Scale CO Calibration Gas Concentration. 

Choose one or more up-scale gas concentrations such that the 

average of the stack gas measurements for each stack gas 

sampling run are between 25 and 150 percent of those 

concentrations. Alternatively, choose an up-scale gas that does 

not exceed twice the concentration of the applicable outlet 

standard. If a measured gas value exceeds 150 percent of the upscale CO calibration gas value at any time during the stack gas 

sampling run, the run must be discarded and repeated. 

7.1.2 Up-Scale O2 Calibration Gas Concentration.

Select an O2 gas concentration such that the difference between 

the gas concentration and the average stack gas measurement or 

reading for each sample run is less than 15 percent O2. When the 

average exhaust gas O2 readings are above 6 percent, you may use 

dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) for the up-scale O2 calibration 

gas.

7.1.3 Zero Gas. Use an inert gas that contains less than 0.25 

percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration. You 

may use dry air that is free from ambient CO and other 

combustion gas products (e.g., CO2).

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis

8.1 Selection of Sampling Sites. 
Page 189 of 197

8.1.1 Control Device Inlet. Select a sampling site sufficiently 

downstream of the engine so that the combustion gases should be 

well mixed. Use a single sampling extraction point near the 

center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent centroidal 

area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.1.2 Exhaust Gas Outlet. Select a sampling site located at 

least two stack diameters downstream of any disturbance (e.g., 

turbocharger exhaust, crossover junction or recirculation takeoff) and at least one-half stack diameter upstream of the gas 

discharge to the atmosphere. Use a single sampling extraction 

point near the center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent 

centroidal area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.2 Stack Gas Collection and Analysis. Prior to the first stack 

gas sampling run, conduct that the pre-sampling calibration in 

accordance with Section 10.1. Use Figure 1 to record all data. 

Zero the analyzer with zero gas. Confirm and record that the 

scrubber media color is correct and not exhausted. Then position 

the probe at the sampling point and begin the sampling run at 

the same flow rate used during the up-scale calibration. Record 

the start time. Record all EC cell output responses, the EC cell 

temperature, and the flow rate during the “sample conditioning 

phase” once per minute until constant readings are obtained. 

Then begin the “measurement data phase” and record readings 

every 15 seconds for at least two minutes (or eight readings), 
Page 190 of 197

or as otherwise required to achieve two continuous minutes of 

data that meet the specification given in Section 13.1. Finally, 

perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, free from CO 

and other combustion gases, until several minute-to-minute 

readings of consistent value have been obtained. For each run 

use the “measurement data phase” readings to calculate the 

average stack gas CO and O2 concentrations.

8.3 EC Cell Temperature. During each stack gas sampling run, 

measure and record the temperature of the EC cells. The 

temperature during each run must not vary more than ± 10°F. The 

overall EC cell temperature variation must be less than ± 20°F 

from the pre-sampling calibration to the final post-sampling 

calibration check. 

8.4 EC Cell Flow Rate. Maintain the EC cell sample flow rate so 

that it does not vary by more than ± 10 percent throughout the 

pre-sampling calibration, stack gas sampling and post-sampling 

calibration check. Alternatively, the EC cell sample flow rate 

can be maintained within a tolerance range that does not affect 

the gas concentration readings by more than ± 3 percent, as 

instructed by the EC cell manufacturer. 

9.0 Quality Control (Reserved)

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Pre-Sampling Calibration. Conduct the following protocol 

once for each nominal range to be used on each EC cell before 
Page 191 of 197

performing a stack gas sampling run on each field sampling day. 

Repeat the calibration if you replace an EC cell before 

completing all of the sampling runs. There is no prescribed 

order for calibration of the EC cells; however, each cell must 

complete the measurement data phase during calibration. Assemble 

the measurement system by following the manufacturer's 

recommended protocols including for preparing and 

preconditioning the EC cell. Assure the measurement system has 

no leaks and verify the gas scrubbing agent is not depleted. Use 

Figure 1 to record all data. 

10.1.1 Zero Calibration. For both the O2 and CO cells, introduce 

zero gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the concentration reading every minute 

until readings are constant for at least two consecutive 

minutes. Include the time, EC cell temperature, and sample flow 

rate. Repeat the steps in this section at least once to verify 

the zero calibration for each component gas. 

10.1.2 Zero Calibration Tolerance. For each zero gas 

introduction, the zero level output must be less than or equal 

to ± 3 percent of the up-scale gas value or ± 1 ppm, whichever 

is less restrictive, for the CO channel and less than or equal 

to ± 0.3 percent O2 for the O2 channel. 

10.1.3 Up-Scale Calibration. Individually introduce each 

calibration gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the 
Page 192 of 197

calibration assembly) and record the start time. Record all EC 

cell output responses, the EC cell temperature, and the flow 

rate during this “sample conditioning phase” once per minute 

until readings are constant for at least two minutes. Then begin 

the “measurement data phase” and record readings every 15 

seconds for a total of two minutes, or as otherwise required. 

Finally, perform the “refresh phase” by introducing dry air, 

free from CO and other combustion gases, until readings are 

constant for at least two consecutive minutes. Then repeat the 

steps in this section at least once to verify the calibration 

for each component gas. Introduce all gases to flow through the 

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

sampling probe or the calibration assembly). 

10.1.4 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference of 

the “measurement data phase” readings from the reported standard 

gas value must be less than or equal to ± 5 percent or ± 1 ppm 

for CO or ± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, 

respectively. The maximum allowable deviation from the mean 

measured value of any single "measurement data phase" reading 

must be less than or equal to ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or 

± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, respectively. 

10.2 Post-Sampling Calibration Check. Conduct a stack gas postsampling calibration check after the stack gas sampling run or 

set of runs and within 12 hours of the initial calibration. 
Page 193 of 197

Conduct up-scale and zero calibration checks using the protocol 

in Section 10.1. Make no changes to the sampling system or EC 

cell calibration until all post-sampling calibration checks have 

been recorded. If either the zero or up-scale calibration error 

exceeds the respective specification in Sections 10.1.2 and 

10.1.4 then all measurement data collected since the previous 

successful calibrations are invalid and re-calibration and resampling are required. If the sampling system is disassembled or 

the EC cell calibration is adjusted, repeat the calibration 

check before conducting the next analyzer sampling run. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

The analytical procedure is fully discussed in Section 8.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

Determine the CO and O2 concentrations for each stack gas 

sampling run by calculating the mean gas concentrations of the 

data recorded during the “measurement data phase”. 

13.0 Protocol Performance

Use the following protocols to verify consistent analyzer 

performance during each field sampling day. 

13.1 Measurement Data Phase Performance Check. Calculate the 

mean of the readings from the “measurement data phase”. The 

maximum allowable deviation from the mean for each of the 

individual readings is ± 2 percent, or ± 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. Record the mean value and maximum deviation 
Page 194 of 197

for each gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 10.1.4. The 

EC cell temperature and EC cell flow rate must conform to the 

specifications in Section 8.3 and 8.4 respectively. 

Example: A measurement data phase is invalid if the maximum 

deviation of any single reading comprising that mean is greater 

than ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm (the default criteria). For example, 

if the mean = 30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and above 

31 ppm are disallowed).

13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial use of the EC cell 

and interference gas scrubber in the field, and semi-annually 

thereafter, challenge the interference gas scrubber with an NO2

gas standard that is generally recognized as representative of 

diesel-fueled engine NO2 emission values. Record the response 

displayed by the CO EC cell and other pertinent data on Figure 1 

or a similar form. 

13.2.1 Interference Response. The CO interference response 

should be less than or equal to ± 5 percent of the up-scale CO 

calibration gas concentration. 

13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the following check once for 

each nominal range that is to be used on the CO EC cell within 

five days prior to each field sampling program. If a field 

sampling program lasts longer than five days, repeat this check 

every five days. Immediately repeat the check if the EC cell is 

replaced or if the EC cell is exposed to gas concentrations 
Page 195 of 197

greater than 150 percent of the highest up-scale gas 

concentration.

13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. Perform a complete EC cell 

sampling run (all three phases) by introducing the CO 

calibration gas to the measurement system and record the 

response. Follow Section 10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all 

data. Repeat the run three times for a total of four complete 

runs. During the four repeatability check runs, do not adjust 

the system except where necessary to achieve the correct 

calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer.

13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. Determine the highest 

and lowest average “measurement data phase” CO concentrations 

from the four repeatability check runs and record the results on 

Figure 1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the difference 

between the maximum and minimum average values recorded must not 

vary more than ± 3 percent or ± 1 ppm of the up-scale gas value, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved)

15.0 Waste Management (Reserved) 

16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved) 

17.0 References

(1) “Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer 

Test Protocol”, Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission 

Monitoring, Inc., July 1997. 
Page 196 of 197

(2) “Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and 

Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and 

Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers”, EMC Conditional Test 

Protocol 30 (CTM-30), Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI96/0008, Revision 7, October 13, 1997. 

(3) "ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic Monitoring”, EMC 

Conditional Test Protocol 34 (CTM-034), The Institute of Clean 

Air Companies, September 8, 1999. 

(4) “Code of Federal Regulations”, Protection of Environment, 

40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1-4; 10. 

Table 1: Appendix A - Sampling Run Data. 

Facility________________ Engine I.D.______________ Date_________ 

 Run Type: (__) (__) (__) (__) 

 (X) Pre-Sample Stack Gas Post-Sample Repeatability 

 Calibration Sample Cal. Check Check 

 

Run # 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Time Scrub. 

OK 

FlowRate 

Gas O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO 

 

Sample 

Cond. 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

Measurement 

Data 

Phase 

 

“ 
Page 197 of 197

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

 Mean 

 

Refresh 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 
Subject: RICE -- Comments on CI RIA and Pipeline issue

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/17/2012 06:20 PM 

Subject: RE: RICE -- Comments on CI RIA and Pipeline issue

Hi Melanie, 

Below are additional comments received from the interagency reviewers on the rule: 

Brief Comment on Applicability of Remote Engine Provisions, Currently Proposed for SI Engines, for CI Engines in 

Proposed RICE Rule 

The latest RICE proposal exempts “remote” SI engines from the new regulations (SI = spark ignition, usually natural 

gas fired engines; “remote” means no more than 5 structures within 1⁄4 mile of an engine). 

Should CI engines also be exempted from the new regulations, if they meet the definition of “remote”? 

CI engines (usually diesel fired) emit considerably more particulates than would an engine fired with natural gas. 

Diesel emissions, from my published understanding of the science, are likely the most harmful of all PM2.5 species 

(see Grahame and Schlesinger, 2010, referenced below, for a 25 page review connecting in vitro toxicology, in vivo 

animal studies, population-based epidemiology and human panel studies of black carbon (BC)/vehicular emissions, 

with seven different cardiovascular endpoints). 

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to exempt CI engines which would meet the definition of “remote” from the 

proposed RICE regulations. It is therefore proposed that “remote” CI engines also be exempted, as are remote SI 

engines. 

The first, primary reason for exemption is that BC and other vehicular emissions emitted at ground level largely 

disperse within roughly 100 meters (much less than 1⁄4 mile) of where they are emitted. The second, related reason 

is that significant adverse health effects are found within 100 meters of a major road, compared to areas further 

away. About a dozen such health studies (“highway proximity” studies) are listed and discussed in the Grahame and 

Schlesinger (2010) reference. The third reason is that a single remote diesel engine would in virtually all cases emit 

less BC than would be emitted from trucks and some cars on a major road. Thus health effects, even within 100 

meters of a remote engine, in addition to further from such an engine, would likely be less than observed in 

“highway proximity” studies. 

Below is an illustration (from Zhu et al., 2002) showing the rapid decline of BC and particle number from a major 

freeway, note that most of the decline of BC back to upwind levels occurs in the first 100 meters, and “normalcy” is 

almost achieved by 300 meters (under 1/5 of a mile). There is no physical reason I can think of why emissions 

released at ground level from a remote diesel engine would behave any differently than in the illustration. 

References: 

Grahame TJ and Schlesinger RB. 2010. Cardiovascular health and particulate vehicular emissions: a critical 

evaluation of the evidence. Air Qual Atmos Health. 3:3–27 Study is available online here: 

http://www.biomedsearch.com/attachments/00/20/37/61/20376169/11869_2009_Article_47.pdf 
Zhu Y, Hinds WG, Kim S, Sioutas C. 2002. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major 

highway. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 52:1032–1042 

From: Higgins, Cortney 

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:07 PM 

To: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov; Sorrels.Larry@epamail.epa.gov 

Cc: Bob Wayland (Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov); Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RICE -- Comments on CI RIA and Pipeline issue 

Hi Melanie and Larry, 

Below are additional comments on the CI RIA from interagency reviewers: 

- Table 3-23 on page 3-29 does not fit in that location, as it is a table related to hospitals in the section for 

irrigation and welding engines. Also, in the paragraph just following Table 3-27 on page 3-32, the acreages 

included by EPA represent all acreage (irrigated and non-irrigated) and should be noted as such. As it 

reads now, one could assume that this acreage represents irrigated acreage only. EPA’s statement in that 

paragraph that the use of on-farm irrigation pumps “...is tied to the amount of agricultural land in 

production” is also not entirely correct, as there is no set percentage of agricultural land in production that 

is annually under irrigation. Additionally, the use of engines (and size of engines) is also related to the 

source of water for irrigated lands. Larger engines will be needed for pumping groundwater from greater 

depths, whereas smaller electric pumps may be used more appropriately for nearby surface irrigation 

water. 

- The CI RICE RIA only shows 18 total irrigation engines >300 hp (see Table 4-5). These numbers appear to 

go all the way back to the original CI RICE analysis, which was prior to receiving the updated irrigation 

information from USDA that was used in the SI analysis. Although those numbers aren’t perfect either, that 

analysis indicated there were likely a little over 5200 CI irrigation engines >300 hp. We also know that the 

San Joaquin Valley has at least 426 engines in this category (17 Tier 3 with early adoption, 49 Tier 1, 306 

Tier 2 – all of these are involved in the issues under consideration in this rule), so the national inventory 

should be higher. From this, we obviously already know that there are more than 18. 

- It looks to me like the numbers in the CI RIA weren’t updated after receiving the update information from 

USDA because the 2010 CI rule was already finalized and this is the first time since then that it has been reopened. We should really use the updated USDA-NASS information, realizing that most of the 5200 CI 

engines >300 hp are going to be at area sources and remote. That also obviously changes the cost/benefits 

for these engines, and puts a greater emphasis on extending the remoteness relief proposal to CI engines. 

We aren’t talking about 18 engines that would be affected anymore, we’re now talking about several 

thousand – many of which are likely on individual farms with individual farmers operating them.

Melanie, on the pipeline issue, interrgency reviewers had the following comments: 

If EPA intends to keep the definition of a pipeline segment to mean only a natural gas pipeline, we agree that the 

change to the reg text in paragraph 3 of 63.6675 set forth below is needed. 

In addition, we suggest minor modifications be made to the preamble at pages 10-11 and 45 to clarify that the 

alternative of 5 buildings in 0.25 mile radius for non-pipeline engines will also be applied to engines along 

hazardous liquid pipelines. See attached. 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

________________________________________________ 

Cortney Higgins, PhD 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
Subject: RICE: Excerpt Pages 28-29 - Emergency Demand Response Engines (new language in bold

italics)

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/18/2012 01:33 PM

Subject: RICE: Excerpt Pages 28-29 - Emergency Demand Response Engines (new language in bold italics)

Hi Bob and Melanie,

See the suggested edit below regarding the emergency demand response engines. 

Thanks,

Cortney

The circumstances during which the EPA would allow stationary emergency engines

to operate for emergency demand response purposes include periods during which

the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level

2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during

periods where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or

more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA Level 2 alerts there is

insufficient energy supply and a true potential for electrical blackouts.

System operators must call on all available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts

in order to stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation is

a good indicator of severe instability on the system. Consistent normal voltage

provided by the utility is often called power quality and is an important

factor in local electric system reliability. Reliability of the system requires

electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The American National

Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 defines the maximum allowable voltage

sag at below 5 percent. On the local distribution level local voltage levels

are therefore important and a 5 percent or more change in the normal voltage or

frequency is substantial and an indication that additional resources are needed

to ensure local distribution system reliability. This situation would be

indicative of severe instability on the system. EPA has revised the language

identifying the emergency conditions that currently appears at 60.421ll because

that language is not as specific as the newly proposed language. The agency

believes that the newly proposed language will address all emergency events,

including all those that would be recognized solely by the local system

operators, such as local weather events and requests comments on the scope of

the new language.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael 

Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry 

Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/22/2012 11:19 AM 

Subject: RE: revised RICE preamble/reg

Hi Melanie, 

Attached is a redline with comments on the preamble. 

There was one further question on the San Joaquin Valley issue: 

It’s our understanding that the San Joaquin Rule 4702 Tier 4 standard requires 2.6 gm/bhp-hr CO or less for engines 

of 300 hp and greater. It’s our understanding that this is not directly comparable to the CO RICE standard – can you 

let us know if it is? If not, should EPA explain the local standard in the preamble, e.g. a conversion based on 

horsepower, and possibly a correction for O2 concentration? 

Can EPA indicate if the RICE rule would effectively replace the local rule, or whether compliance with two rules is 

still required? 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

From: Melanie King [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:40 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Fred Talcott; RobertJ Wayland; Michael Horowitz; Larry Sorrels; Amy Lamson 

Subject: revised RICE preamble/reg

Hi Cortney, 

We made additional revisions to the package in response to the interagency comments. Please see the 

attached redline/strikeout file which shows the changes we have made since the version I sent on Friday, 

May 11. 

(See attached file: RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Proposal 2060-AQ58 5-21-12 pm 

redline.docx) 

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov(See attached file: CFR-2009-title49-vol3-sec192-5.pdf)(See attached file: 

RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Proposal 2060-AQ58 5-21-12 

pm_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.docx)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

E.O. 12866 NESHAP RICE; NSPS For Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines 2060-AQ58 Proposal 20120521 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-XXXX-Y] 

RIN 2060-AQ58 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engines under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. The proposed amendments include alternative 

testing options for certain large spark ignition (generally 

natural gas-fueled) stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, management practices for a subset of existing spark 

ignition stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines in 

sparsely populated areas and alternative monitoring and 

compliance options for the same engines in populated areas. The 
Page 2 of 201 

EPA is also proposing to include a limited temporary allowance 

for existing stationary emergency area source engines to be used 

for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response. In addition, 

the EPA is proposing to increase the hours that stationary 

emergency engines may be used for emergency demand response. The 

proposed amendments also correct minor mistakes in the preexisting regulations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

DATE 45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 30 

days after date of public meeting if later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 

public meeting by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public meeting will be held on 

[INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If you are interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify 

that a meeting will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, by one of the following methods: 

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

 Fax: (202) 566-1741. 

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Page 3 of 201 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please 

include a total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

 Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going 
Page 4 of 201 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is held, it will be held at 

the EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC or an alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies on documents in 

Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0030, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, and incorporated 

those dockets into the record for this action. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in 
Page 5 of 201 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy 

Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-

01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile 

number (919) 541-5450; email address king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 

the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions 

G. Compliance Date 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the benefits? 
Page 6 of 201 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts? 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This proposal was developed to address certain issues that have 

been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, several 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments 

and other communications. This proposal also provides 

clarifications and corrects minor mistakes in the current RICE 

NESHAP and revises the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
Page 7 of 201 

for stationary engines, 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

for consistency with the RICE NESHAP. 

This action is conducted under the authority of section 112 

of the CAA, “Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (HAP) which requires the 

EPA to establish NESHAP for the control of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing sources in regulated 

source categories. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action 

After promulgation of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments, the 

EPA received several petitions for reconsideration, legal 

challenges, and other communications raising issues of practical 

implementability, and certain factual information that had not 

been brought to the EPA’s attention during the rulemaking. The 

EPA has considered this information and believes that amendments 

to the rule to address certain of these issues are appropriate. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ, NESHAP for Stationary RICE. The current regulation applies 

to owners and operators of existing and new stationary RICE at 

major and area sources of HAP emissions. The applicability of 

the rule remains the same and is not changed by this proposal. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

engines to conform with certain of the amendments proposed for 

the NESHAP. 
Page 8 of 201 

The EPA proposes to add an alternative compliance 

demonstration option for stationary 4-stroke rich burn (4SRB) 

spark ignition (SI) engines subject to a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction. Owners and operators of 4SRB engines 

would be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the 76 percent 

formaldehyde reduction emission standard by testing total 

hydrocarbon (THC) emissions and showing that the engine is 

achieving at least a 30 percent reduction of THC emissions. The 

alternative compliance option would provide a less expensive and 

less complex, but equally effective, method for demonstrating 

compliance than testing for formaldehyde. 

Certain stationary RICE are maintained in order to be able 

to respond to emergency power needs. The EPA proposes to allow 

owners and operators of such stationary emergency RICE to 

operate their engines as part of an emergency demand response 

program within the 100 hours per year that is already permitted 

for maintenance and testing of the engines. The 100 hours per 

year allowance would ensure that a sufficient number of hours 

are permitted for engines to meet independent system operator 

(ISO) and regional transmission organization (RTO) tariffs and 

other requirements for participating in various emergency demand 

response programs and would assist in stabilizing the grid, 

preventing electrical blackouts and supporting local electric 

system reliability. A temporary limited allowance that will 
Page 9 of 201 

expire on April 16, 2017 (the date by which full compliance with 

the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units (77 FR 9304) is expected), is being proposed 

for stationary emergency engines located at area sources of HAP 

emissions to be used for up to 50 hours per year for any nonemergency purpose, including peak shaving. The 50 hours is part 

of the 100 hours per year total allowance for all types of 

emergency engine operation (except during emergencies where no 

other power is available, which is not restricted by the rule). 

The temporary allowance for peak shaving would give sources time 

to address reliability issues and develop solutions to 

reliability issues while facilities are coming into compliance 

with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units, which were promulgated on February 16, 2012 

(77 FR 9304). 

 The EPA proposes management practices for owners and 

operators of existing stationary 4-stroke SI engines above 500 

horsepower (HP) that are area sources of HAP emissions and where 

the engines are remote from human activity. A remote area is 

defined as either a Department of Transportation (DOT) Class 1 
Page 10 of 201 

pipeline location1

, or, if the facility is not on a pipeline, if 

within a 0.25 mile radius of the facility there are 5 or less 

buildings intended for human occupancy. The 0.25 mile radius was 

chosen as the area would be similar to the area used for the DOT 

pipeline Class location. The EPA proposes that these sources be 

subject to management practices rather than numeric emission 

limits and associated testing and monitoring. This would address 

reasonable concerns with accessibility, infrastructure, and 

staffing that stem from the remoteness of the engines and higher 

costs that would be associated with compliance with the existing 

requirements. The EPA proposes that existing stationary 4-stroke 

SI engines above 500 HP at area sources that are in populated 

areas (defined as DOT pipeline Class 2 through Class 4 areas, or 

if not on a pipeline, if within a 0.25 mile radius of the 

facility there are more than 5 buildings intended for human 

occupancy) be subject to an equipment standard that requires the 

installation of HAP-reducing aftertreatment. The EPA has the 

discretion to set an equipment standard as GACT for engines 

located at area sources of HAP. Sources would be required to 

test their engines to demonstrate compliance initially, perform 

catalyst activity check-ups, and either monitor the catalyst 

 

1

 A Class 1 location is defined as an offshore area or any class 

location unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 
Page 11 of 201 

inlet temperature continuously or employ high temperature 

shutdown devices to protect the catalyst. 

To address how certain existing compression ignition (CI) 

engines are currently regulated, the EPA proposes to specify 

that any existing certified CI engine above 300 HP at an area 

source of HAP emissions that was certified to meet the Tier 3 

engine standards and was installed before June 12, 2006, is in 

compliance with the NESHAP. This provision would create 

regulatory consistency between the same engines installed before 

and after June 12, 2006. Engines at area sources of HAP for 

which construction commenced before June 12, 2006, are 

considered existing engines under the NESHAP. 

The EPA is proposing amendments to the requirements for 

existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified CI engines 

located at area sources that are subject to state and locally 

enforceable requirements requiring replacement of the engine by 

June 1, 2018. This is meant to deal with a specific concern 

regarding the interaction of the NESHAP with certain rules for 

agricultural engines in the San Joaquin Valley in California. 

The EPA is proposing to allow these engines to meet management 

practices under the RICE NESHAP from the May 3, 2013 compliance 

date until January 1, 2015, or 12 years after installation date, 

but not later than June 1, 2018. This provision would deal with 

the issue of owners and operators having to install controls on 
Page 12 of 201 

their engines in order to meet the RICE NESHAP, and then having 

to replace their engines shortly thereafter due to state and 

local rules specifying the replacement of engines. Owners and 

operators will have additional time to replace their engines 

without having to install controls, but will be required to use 

management practices during that period. 

The last major change the EPA proposes to make is to 

broaden the definition of remote area sources of Alaska in the 

RICE NESHAP. Currently, remote areas are those that are not on 

the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). This change would permit 

existing stationary CI engines at other remote area sources in 

Alaska to meet management practices as opposed to emission 

standards likely necessitating aftertreatment. These remote 

areas have the same challenges as areas not on the FAHS, and 

complying with the current rule would similarly be prohibitively 

costly and potentially infeasible. In addition to area sources 

located in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS 

being defined as remote and subject to management practices, the 

EPA also proposes that any stationary RICE in Alaska meeting all 

of the following conditions be subject to management practices: 

 (1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 
Page 13 of 201 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid, and 

(2) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes, and 

(3) The generating capacity of the area source is less than 

12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively for 

backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 hrs 

per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

 These proposed amendments would reduce the capital and 

annual costs of the original 2010 amendments by $287 million and 

$139 million, respectively. The EPA estimates that with the 

proposed amendments, the capital cost of the rule is $840 

million and the annual cost is $490 million ($2010). 

These proposed amendments would also result in decreases to 

the emissions reductions estimated in 2013 from the original 

2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The estimated reductions in 2013 

from the 2010 RICE NESHAP rulemaking with these proposed 

amendments are 2,800 tons per year (tpy) of HAP, 36,000 tpy of 

carbon monoxide (CO), 2,800 tpy of particulate matter (PM), 

9,600 tpy of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and 36,000 tpy of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). The reductions that were estimated for 

the original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments were 7,000 tpy of HAP, 
Page 14 of 201 

124,000 tpy of CO, 2,800 tpy of PM, 96,000 tpy of NOx, and 

58,000 tpy of VOC. 

The EPA estimates the monetized co-benefits in 2013 of the 

original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments with these proposed 

amendments incorporated to be $830 million to $2,100 million 

(2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $740 million to 

$1,800 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

benefits that were estimated for the original 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments were $1,500 million to $3,600 million (2010 dollars) 

at a 3-percent discount rate and $1,300 million to $3,200 

million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. 

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry 

using a 

stationary 

internal 

combustion engine 

as defined in the 

proposed 

amendments. 

2211 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 
Page 15 of 201 

this action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of 

this proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 

through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all 

of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 

in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. 

Melanie King, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. 
Page 16 of 201 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

 (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 

identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date 

and page number). 

 (b) Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to 

specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

 (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your requested changes. 

 (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used. 

 (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 

you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for 

it to be reproduced. 

 (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, 

and suggest alternatives. 

 (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 

use of profanity or personal threats. 

 (h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Docket. The docket number for this proposed rule is Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. 
Page 17 of 201 

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 Website (TTN 

Web). Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of this 

proposed rule on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

 This action proposes amendments to the NESHAP for RICE in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. This action also proposes 

amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts IIII and JJJJ. The NESHAP for stationary RICE to 

regulate emissions of HAP was developed in several stages. The 

EPA initially addressed stationary RICE greater than 500 HP 

located at major sources of HAP emissions in 2004 (69 FR 33473). 

The EPA addressed new stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 

HP located at major sources and new stationary RICE located at 

area sources in 2008 (73 FR 3568). Most recently, requirements 

for existing stationary RICE less than or equal to 500 HP 

located at major sources and existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources were finalized in 2010 (75 FR 9648 and 75 FR 

51570). 
Page 18 of 201 

 The EPA is proposing to address a number of issues that 

have been raised by different stakeholders through lawsuits, 

several petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 RICE NESHAP 

amendments, and other communications. The EPA is also proposing 

to revise 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ for consistency 

with the RICE NESHAP and to make minor corrections and 

clarifications. The following sections present the issues that 

the EPA is addressing in this action, background information as 

to why these issues are causing concern among affected 

stakeholders, and how the EPA proposes to resolve the issues. 

A. Total Hydrocarbon Compliance Demonstration Option

1. Background 

 Currently, SI 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 

HP located at major sources and existing SI 4SRB non-emergency 

engines greater than 500 HP located at area sources have the 

option of meeting either a formaldehyde percent reduction or a 

formaldehyde concentration standard. Formaldehyde was 

established in the original 2004 RICE NESHAP as an appropriate 

surrogate for HAP emissions from 4SRB engines based on industry 

test data available at that time. Based on testing of stationary 

lean burn engines conducted at Colorado State University (CSU), 

the EPA was able to establish CO as a surrogate for HAP for lean 

burn engines. Rich burn engines were not tested at CSU and the 

data the EPA had available at the time that were used to set the 
Page 19 of 201 

standards for rich burn engines did not support the same 

relationship between CO and HAP reductions for rich burn 

engines. Therefore, the EPA was unable to establish CO as a 

surrogate for HAP emissions for rich burn engines and the 

emission standard for rich burn engines was specified in terms 

of formaldehyde, the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the 

largest quantity from stationary engines. 

 The EPA has previously acknowledged that it is 

significantly more expensive and difficult to test for 

formaldehyde than for CO, but has been unable in the past to 

support the same flexibility for rich burn engines as is 

currently in the rule for lean burn engines with the option to 

meet the standards in terms of either formaldehyde or CO. For 

these reasons, and expecting that new data for rich burn engines 

may become available in the future for the EPA to review and 

reassess possible surrogates for HAP, the EPA requested comment 

on this issue when proposing NESHAP for stationary existing 

engines less than or equal to 500 HP at major sources and all 

stationary existing engines at area sources in 2009 (74 FR 

9698). Specifically, the EPA solicited comment on whether it 

would be appropriate to include an alternative standard in terms 

of VOC and asked that commenters submit data supporting the 

relationship between HAP and VOC. Comments the EPA received back 

on the proposed rule asked that the formaldehyde standards for 
Page 20 of 201 

rich burn engines be replaced with emission standards for THC. 

The EPA determined at the time that it was not appropriate to 

adopt an alternative standard in terms of THC (or VOC) for rich 

burn engines and discussed the reasons why in the 2010 responses 

to comments.2

 Compliance with the formaldehyde standard in the 

rule is, therefore, currently demonstrated by initial and 

continuous performance testing for formaldehyde. 

 On October 19, 2010, engine manufacturer Dresser-Waukesha 

submitted a petition for reconsideration of the formaldehyde 

requirements. The EPA granted the petition for reconsideration 

on January 5, 2011. (In addition, on November 3, 2010, the 

Engine Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for 

judicial review of these requirements.) In the petition for 

reconsideration, Dresser-Waukesha argued that formaldehyde is 

difficult and costly to measure. The petition requested that the 

HAP surrogate for 4SRB engines should be THC rather than 

formaldehyde. Dresser-Waukesha submitted data from testing it 

conducted illustrating that THC reduction across the catalyst is 

 

2

 Memorandum from Melanie King, EPA Energy Strategies Group to 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines Located at Area Sources of Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less Than or Equal to 

500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions. August 10, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0557. 
Page 21 of 201 

an appropriate surrogate for HAP reduction across the catalyst.3

According to the petitioner, testing for THC is easier and less 

costly and would substantially reduce the burden of the rule for 

owners and operators of these engines. Testing for formaldehyde 

emissions could cost more than double that of testing for THC 

emissions and on a nationwide basis the EPA estimates that 

replacing formaldehyde testing with THC testing would result in 

substantial compliance cost savings annually while achieving the 

same reduction in HAP emissions. 

The EPA has reviewed the data submitted by DresserWaukesha. The data provided indicate that a strong relationship 

exists between percentage reductions of THC and percentage 

reductions of formaldehyde (the surrogate for HAP emissions in 

the NESHAP) on rich burn engines using non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR). Data analyzed by the EPA indicate that if the 

NSCR is reducing THC by at least 30 percent from 4SRB engines, 

formaldehyde emissions are guaranteed to be reduced by at least 

76 percent, which is the percentage reduction required for the 

relevant engines. Indeed, the percentage reduction of 

formaldehyde is invariably well above the 76 percent level, and 

is usually above 90 percent. Therefore, the EPA agrees with the 

 

3

Letter from Dresser-Waukesha to Melanie King. Follow-up to 

November 18, 2010 Teleconference. December 6, 2010. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0662. 
Page 22 of 201 

petitioner that for SI 4SRB engines using NSCR and meeting the 

NESHAP by showing a percentage reduction of HAP, it would be 

appropriate to allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the 

NESHAP by showing a THC reduction of at least 30 percent. 

Including an optional THC compliance demonstration option would 

reduce the cost of compliance significantly while continuing to 

achieve the same level of HAP emission reduction because the 

emission standards would remain the same. Consequently, the EPA 

is proposing amendments to allow owners and operators of certain 

stationary 4SRB engines (i.e., the ones currently subject to a 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement) to show compliance 

with an optional THC compliance demonstration option. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are presented below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to add an alternative method of 

demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP for stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions and for existing stationary 4SRB 

non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP that are located at 

area sources of HAP emissions that choose to meet the 

formaldehyde percent reduction requirement of 76 percent or 

more. 

 Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the 

petition discussed above, the EPA is proposing to add a 
Page 23 of 201 

compliance demonstration option for stationary 4SRB engines 

meeting a 76 percent or more formaldehyde reduction. The 

compliance demonstration option would be an alternative to the 

existing method of demonstrating compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction standard, which is to test 

engines for formaldehyde. The alternative for owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines meeting a 76 percent or more 

formaldehyde reduction would be to test their engines for THC 

showing that the engine is achieving at least a 30 percent 

reduction of THC emissions. 

 Under the proposed amendments, existing and new stationary 

4SRB engines greater than 500 HP and located at major sources 

would still be required to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 

percent or more or limit the concentration of formaldehyde in 

the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 parts per billion by volume, 

dry basis or less at 15 percent oxygen (O2). However, owners and 

operators choosing to meet the formaldehyde concentration limit 

would not have the THC demonstration compliance option, because 

EPA could not verify a clear relationship between concentrations 

of THC and concentrations of formaldehyde in exhaust from these 

SI 4SRB engines. For the reasons discussed in section II.C.1 of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing that existing stationary 

4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP located at area 

sources located in populated areas be subject to an equipment 
Page 24 of 201 

standard and required to install a catalyst. These engines would 

be subject to testing to demonstrate initially and on an ongoing 

basis that the catalyst is reducing CO by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively that THC emissions are being reduced by 30 percent 

or more. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SRB engines 

less than or equal to 500 HP who are required to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 

10.3 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 

15 percent O2 do not have the option to demonstrate compliance 

using THC and must continue to demonstrate compliance by testing 

for formaldehyde following the methods and procedures specified 

in the rule. 

 Owners and operators opting to use the THC compliance 

demonstration method must demonstrate compliance by showing that 

the average reduction of THC is equal to or greater than 30 

percent. Owners and operators of 4SRB stationary RICE complying 

with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and 

demonstrating compliance by using the THC compliance 

demonstration option must conduct performance testing using 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A – Determination of 

Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 

Analyzer. Measurements of THC at the inlet and the outlet of the 

NSCR must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent O2 or 
Page 25 of 201 

equivalent carbon dioxide content. To correct to 15 percent O2, 

dry basis, owners and operators must measure oxygen using Method 

3, 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM Method D6522-

00 (2005) and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. Because owners and operators are complying with a 

percent reduction requirement, the method used must be suitable 

for the entire range of emissions since pre and post-catalyst 

emissions must be measured. Method 25A is capable of measuring 

emissions down to 5 ppmv and is, therefore, an appropriate 

method for measuring THC emissions for compliance demonstration 

purposes. The EPA is allowing sources the option to meet a 

minimum THC percent reduction of 30 percent by using Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to demonstrate compliance with the 

formaldehyde percent reduction in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

B. Emergency Demand Response/Peak Shaving 

1. Background 

 This action also proposes to amend provisions in the RICE 

NESHAP that currently allow owners and operators to operate 

stationary emergency engines for up to 15 hours per year as part 

of a demand response program if the RTO or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator have determined there are 

emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical 

blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, 
Page 26 of 201 

capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. 

The final rule did not allow emergency engines to be used for 

purposes of peak shaving or other non-emergency purposes as part 

of a financial arrangement. These provisions were included in 

the RICE NESHAP when requirements for existing stationary CI 

engines were finalized on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648). Following 

the completion of that portion of the rule, the EPA received 

three main petitions for reconsideration. One petition was from 

CPower, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and 

Innoventive Power, LLC. (EnerNOC et al.)(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-

0404). Another petition was received from the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE 

DNREC) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0400). The third petition was from 

the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 

(OAR-2008-0708-0580). In addition to these main petitions the 

EPA received a substantial number of letters from others in the 

electric generation industry. 

 The petition from EnerNOC, et al., asked that EPA increase 

the period of time permitted for emergency demand response 

operation in the rule to 60 hours per year, or the minimum 

number of hours required by the emergency demand response 

program. By contrast, the DE DNREC petition asked EPA to 

reconsider the emergency demand response provision because of 

the adverse effects that it believes would result from increased 
Page 27 of 201 

emissions from these engines. The petition from NRECA requested 

that the EPA eliminate the restriction on the use of stationary 

emergency engines for demand response purposes. The EPA granted 

the petitions from EnerNOC, et al., DE DNREC and NRECA, and 

issued a notice on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75937), requesting 

comments on whether to amend the 15 hours per year limitation on 

the operation of stationary emergency RICE participating in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The EPA received more than 120 comments from a number of 

different entities including various state agencies, utilities, 

electric cooperatives and industry organizations. Many 

commenters expressed that 15 hours per year is not sufficient to 

meet current emergency demand response requirements for 

participation. For example, several emergency demand response 

programs have ISO tariff requirements greater than 15 hours per 

year, including the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

emergency demand response program, which has a tariff 

requirement of 24 hours per year; the Pennsylvania Jersey 

Maryland (“PJM”) Interconnection, known as the Emergency Load 

Response Program, which has a tariff requirement of 60 hours per 

year; and the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”), which forecasts that 

backup resources would be expected for 55 hours over a 12-month 

period. Tariff requirements are developed to specify the 

mandatory time load resources (engines) must be willing and able 
Page 28 of 201 

to operate if the units are enrolled in the program. Conversely, 

some commenters urged the EPA to allow stationary emergency 

engines to only operate during true emergencies or when voltage 

or frequency varies beyond specified parameters. 

 Based on the EPA’s review of the petitions and comments 

that the EPA has received, the EPA has found it appropriate to 

propose to amend the current rule to increase the allowance for 

stationary emergency engine participation in emergency demand 

response programs to up to 100 hours per year, which would be 

included as part of the pre-existing allowance of 100 hours for 

owners of emergency engines to test and maintain their emergency 

engines. The EPA believes that the emergency demand response 

programs that exist across the country are important programs 

that protect the reliability and stability of the national 

electric service grid. Allowing stationary emergency engines to 

operate as part of emergency demand response programs can help 

prevent grid failure or blackouts, by allowing these engines to 

be used in circumstances of grid instability prior to the 

occurrence of blackouts. Preventing stationary emergency engines 

from being able to qualify and participate in emergency demand 

response programs without having to apply aftertreatment could 

force owners and operators to leave their engines out of these 

programs, which will impair the ability of ISOs and RTOs to use 

these relatively small, quick-starting and reliable sources of 
Page 29 of 201 

energy to protect the reliability of their systems. The EPA does 

not wish to potentially jeopardize electrical reliability or 

create a disincentive for stationary emergency engines to 

participate in these programs. The circumstances during which 

the EPA would allow stationary emergency engines to operate for 

emergency demand response purposes include periods during which 

the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard 

EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergency, plus during periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or more below standard voltage or frequency. During EEA Level 2 

alerts there is insufficient energy supply and a true potential 

for electrical blackouts. System operators must call on all 

available resources during EEA Level 2 alerts in order to 

stabilize the grid to prevent failure. Therefore, this situation 

is a good indicator of severe instability on the system. 

Consistent normal voltage provided by the utility is often 

called power quality and is an important factor in local 

electric system reliability. Reliability of the system requires 

electricity being provided at a normal expected voltage. The 

American National Standards Institute standard C84.1-1989 

defines the maximum allowable voltage sag at below 5 percent. On 
Page 30 of 201 

the local distribution level local voltage levels are therefore 

important and a 5 percent or more change in the normal voltage 

or frequency is substantial and an indication that additional 

resources are needed to ensure local distribution system 

reliability. This situation would be indicative of severe 

instability on the system. The EPA has revised the language 

identifying the emergency conditions that currently appears at 

40 CFR 63.6640(f) because that language is not as specific as 

the newly proposed language. The EPA believes that the newly 

proposed language, along with the preexisting language in the 

definition of emergency engine describing non-demand response 

emergency situations, will address all emergency events, 

including all those that would be recognized solely by the local 

system operators, such as local weather events. The EPA requests 

comments on the scope of the new language. 

Emergency demand response programs rely on agreements under 

which owners of engine agree to make their engines available to 

be called upon for a specific number of hours per year, as 

required by the relevant ISO or RTO tariff, under specified 

circumstances considered to indicate emergencies. In order to be 

enrolled in an emergency demand response program, participants 

must qualify their engines and must be able to use their 

emergency engines for the number of hours the program requires. 

Engines are not generally called upon for the maximum hours 
Page 31 of 201 

required by the tariffs. However, even though the engine may not 

be called at all or may run for fewer hours than the program 

requires it to be available in a particular year, the engine 

must still be available for those theoretical number of hours in 

order to join the program. Demand response contracts require 

more hours than the 15 hours per year that is currently in the 

regulations, and the commenters state that the 15 hours per year 

is not a sufficient amount of time to ensure the reliability of 

the program; some programs require up to 60 hours per year, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble. For these reasons, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to allow additional hours for 

emergency demand response operation in order for such programs 

to be accessible to stationary emergency engines. Consequently, 

the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule to increase the 

limitation on emergency demand response operation to 100 hours 

per year for stationary emergency engines. It is expected that 

owners and operators of stationary emergency engines that seek 

to qualify their units as demand resources would with the 

proposed increase to 100 hours per year be able to meet the 

operational and qualification requirements of the different ISOs 

and RTOs in the country. 

As stated, stationary emergency engines that participate in 

demand response programs may not be called upon at all, but must 

nonetheless be available to operate for the required amount 
Page 32 of 201 

stipulated by the specific program. The purpose of the limited 

allowance for emergency demand response is to respond to 

emergencies, and the EPA is persuaded by the information that 

has been submitted that 15 hours per year is an insufficient 

amount of time to allow for emergency demand response needs, 

given past experience. The EPA believes 100 hours per year is 

sufficient to cover any potential demand response operation as 

well as the required maintenance and testing that is also 

included within the 100 hours of operation. 

The EPA has previously determined that stationary emergency 

engines typically operate well below 50 hours per year and more 

commonly about 1 to 2 hours per month. A survey conducted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicated the average 

yearly operation for emergency diesel engines was 31 hours over 

a period of 3 years. The majority of those hours were for the 

purpose of maintenance and testing; less than 5 hours was for 

interruptible service contracts, and the remaining amount for 

emergency/standby operation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0011). Data 

from demand response programs in ISO-NE and PJM territories show 

that backup generation was dispatched for less than 30 hours 

during the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.4

 

 

4

 Memorandum from Stacy Angel, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to 

Doug Hurley, Synapse Energy Economics. Sample Revenue for a 1 MW 

Backup Generation Unit. June 27, 2011. 
Page 33 of 201 

However, again, emergency units must be available to 

operate more than that in most cases to qualify for demand 

response programs. For instance, PJM requires a minimum ISO 

tariff of 60 hours per year of engine availability for program 

participation. Consequently, in order to ensure that a 

sufficient amount of operating time is available for maintenance 

and readiness testing, and for demand response operation, the 

EPA is proposing 100 hours of operation. A number of commenters 

requested that an allowance of 100 hours per year be allowed in 

order to provide adequate hours consistent with minimum required 

hours that customers must be available to operate and to address 

local distribution system emergencies. For instance, in Hawaii, 

the emergency demand response program operated by the Hawaiian 

Electric Company requires that emergency engines be able to 

operate for 100 hours per year in the event of an emergency in 

order to participate in the program. In order to provide a 

sufficient amount of time to cover annual maintenance and 

testing, which is typically more than 20 hours per year 

according to the survey conducted by CARB (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0029-0011), plus to cover hours necessary for qualifying for 

emergency demand response programs or local distribution system 

emergencies, EPA believes an allowance of 100 hours per year 

would be appropriate for these activities. Taking into account 

that there may be situations where annual maintenance and 
Page 34 of 201 

testing could exceed the typical 1 to 2 hours per month and 

accounting for other emergency demand response programs that 

require more than 60 hours per year for program participation 

(e.g., the Hawaiian Electric Company), the EPA believes that 100 

hours per year is appropriate for emergency demand response plus 

maintenance and testing. 

The proposed amendment to the rule would mean that 

stationary emergency engines could operate for a total of 100 

hours per year for emergency demand response operation as part 

of the 100 hours already permitted for maintenance and readiness 

testing while maintaining their status as emergency units, 

rather than non-emergency units, and continue to meet the 

requirements that apply to emergency engines. 

 On the issue of peak shaving and non-emergency demand 

response, the EPA is proposing to include a temporary limited 

allowance for peak shaving and other types of non-emergency use 

as part of a financial arrangement for existing stationary 

emergency engines at area sources of HAP, if the peak shaving is 

done as part of a peak shaving (or load management) program with 

the local distribution system operator. The power generated 

under this allowance can only be used at the facility or towards 

the local system. 

 The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to include 

the option for existing stationary emergency engines at area 
Page 35 of 201 

sources to operate for a small number (50) of hours per year for 

any non-emergency reason and not be penalized or considered a 

non-emergency engine and subsequently required to install 

aftertreatment that could be prohibitively costly for these 

sources in the near term. The EPA is proposing that the 50-hour 

allowance for peak shaving for emergency engines at area sources 

be allowed for a limited period of time, but then removed after 

April 16, 2017. The peak shaving would also be limited to 

operation as part of a peak shaving (load management program) 

with the local distribution system operator. Owners would still 

have the pre-existing 50 hours per year allowance for nonemergency operation after April 16, 2017, but those 50 hours 

could no longer be used for peak shaving. The temporary 

allowance for peak shaving would give sources an additional 

resource for maintaining reliability while facilities are coming 

into compliance with the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). While the EPA does 

not expect the NESHAP From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units to cause regional reliability problems, 

this limited allowance would allow the owners and operators of 

these engines more flexibility to run reliability critical units 

in order to minimize potential grid-related interruptions as 

coal- and oil-fired baseload power plants may be temporarily 
Page 36 of 201 

shut down to install emission controls to comply with the NESHAP 

From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

 Including this allowance is important for small electric 

cooperatives and other entities located at area sources that use 

these engines to maintain voltage and electric reliability. Many 

rural electric cooperatives enter agreements with owners of 

small emergency engines and rely on the engines to reduce demand 

on the central power supply during periods of high demand, which 

reduces the cost of power during periods of high demand for the 

members of the cooperative. Commenters promoting the continued 

use of peak shaving programs said that maintaining the cost of 

power as low as possible is important across the country, but is 

particularly of significant importance to rural electric 

cooperatives that, according to the commenter, service customers 

in the most economically depressed areas of the country, where 

options are the most limited. The commenters argued that if 

small emergency engines would no longer be permitted to operate 

for peak shaving purposes without having to be reclassified as 

non-emergency engines and subsequently subject to costly 

emissions controls, owners could no longer afford to participate 

in such programs. Cooperatives argued that this would lead to 

increased costs that would ultimately be passed along to the 

customers. Commenters also maintained that keeping peak shaving 

programs would not lead to additional public health risks or 
Page 37 of 201 

emissions because the operation for peak shaving is minimal. If 

peak shaving is not allowed under the rule, commenters said that 

this would lead to an increase in central power station capacity 

and possibly more transmission and distribution line capacity to 

accommodate the increase in demand resulting from eliminating 

small emergency engines from being used. This could lead to a 

larger impact on the environment and public health than allowing 

a small number of hours for peak shaving purposes. Certain small 

and remote facilities also rely on financial programs to 

generate additional income in order to maintain their engines 

and stay in operation. The additional funds can be essential for 

many smaller facilities and operations. Providing a limited 

allowance for peak shaving and non-emergency demand response 

could generate sufficient income to prevent small facilities and 

owners from ceasing operation where these engines are in 

service. In order to further limit the operation of these 

engines to small, remote facilities, the EPA is proposing that 

the power generated under this allowance can only be used at the 

facility or towards the local system. In addition, while the EPA 

is proposing this allowance until the end of April 16, 2017, the 

EPA does not believe it is appropriate to continue the program 

beyond that time. Generators receive considerable compensation 

for their availability in peak shaving programs and the EPA 

believes that it is not appropriate to allow these engines to 
Page 38 of 201 

continue receiving compensation for this non-emergency use 

beyond 2017 without having to reduce their emissions. The 

generators must by that time decide whether to restrict their 

use to emergency or limited non-compensated non-emergency use or 

to reduce the emissions from their engines. The EPA also 

encourages engine owners and operators, as well as larger system 

planners, to consider the use of alternative peak shaving 

options, such as load curtailments, lower emitting distributed 

generation, combined heat and power, and reduced line losses on 

the electricity grid. 

The previous estimate of emissions from stationary 

emergency engines is not expected to change due to this proposed 

limited allowance. To estimate emissions from stationary 

emergency engines, the EPA has previously estimated that 

emergency engines would on average operate for 50 hours per 

year. There is a wide range in how much these engines operate 

(some well below 50 hours per year), but on average and to be 

conservative, the EPA believes that 50 hours per year is still 

representative and consequently the environmental impact the EPA 

has calculated previously remains appropriate. In consideration 

of all these issues, the EPA is proposing amendments to the rule 

to provide a limited allowance for peak shaving for existing 

stationary emergency engines at area sources of HAP. The 

specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed below. 
Page 39 of 201 

2. Proposed Amendments 

a. Emergency Demand Response. Based on the discussion in section 

II.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the 

current provisions for stationary engines used for emergency 

demand response operation. The provisions the EPA is proposing 

to amend are in §§63.6640(f) and 63.6675 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. Currently, §63.6640(f)(1)(iii) allows a maximum of 

15 hours per year to be spent towards demand response operation 

under certain qualifying conditions. Also, §63.6640(f)(1)(ii) 

currently includes an allowance of 100 hours per year for 

purposes of maintenance checks and readiness testing. The EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency RICE 

be permitted to operate their engines as part of an emergency 

demand response program within the 100 hours per year that is 

permitted for maintenance and testing in §63.6640(f)(1)(ii). 

Owners and operators of stationary emergency engines can operate 

for emergency demand response during periods in which the 

regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has declared an EEA Level 2 

as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergency and during periods where there is a deviation of 

voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard 

voltage or frequency. The hours spent for emergency demand 
Page 40 of 201 

response operation are added to the hours spent for maintenance 

and testing purposes and counted towards the 100 hours per year. 

If the total time spent for demand response operation and 

maintenance and testing exceeds 100 hours per year the engine 

will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart 

and will need to meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. The EPA is recognizing that these engines may be called 

to operate not only by the regional transmission operator or 

equivalent to maintain the reliability of the bulk power system, 

but also by the local transmission and distribution system 

operators to support the local power systems. 

 For stationary emergency engines above 500 HP that were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, there is currently no 

emergency demand response allowance and there is no time limit 

on the use of emergency engines for routine testing and 

maintenance in §63.6640(f)(2)(ii). Those engines were not the 

focus of the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments; therefore, the EPA did 

not make any changes to the requirements for those engines as 

part of the 2010 amendments. For consistency, the EPA is now 

also proposing that owners and operators of stationary emergency 

engines installed prior to June 12, 2006, be permitted to 

operate their engines as part of a demand response program as 

well for a total of 100 hours per year, including time spent for 

maintenance and testing. 
Page 41 of 201 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the NSPS for stationary 

CI and SI engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, 

respectively, to provide the same allowance for stationary 

emergency engines for emergency demand response operation as for 

engines subject to the RICE NESHAP. The NSPS regulations 

currently do not include such an allowance for emergency demand 

response operation. For the reasons discussed in section II.B of 

this preamble as to why the EPA finds it appropriate to allow 

stationary emergency engines to participate in emergency demand 

response programs and remain being considered emergency units, 

and for consistency across engine regulations, the EPA is 

proposing to add an emergency demand response allowance under 

the NSPS regulations. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing language in §§60.4211(f) and 60.4219 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and §§60.4243(d) and 60.4248 of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, to specify that emergency engines may 

participate in demand response programs for up to 100 hours per 

year, including hours spent towards maintenance and testing of 

the emergency engines. 

b. Peak Shaving and other Non-emergency Use as Part of a 

Financial Arrangement. In addition to the changes the EPA is 

proposing related to emergency demand response operation, the 

EPA is also including a further provision for owners and 

operators of existing stationary emergency RICE located at area 
Page 42 of 201 

sources for the reasons discussed in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble. Paragraph §63.6640(f) currently allows owners and 

operators of emergency stationary RICE to operate their engine 

for 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations. As currently 

written, the 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations 

cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for a 

facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply 

power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity; 

except that owners and operators of certain emergency engines 

may operate the engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as 

part of an emergency demand response program. As discussed, the 

15 hours per year allowance for emergency engines to participate 

in emergency demand response programs is being increased to 100 

hours per year, but will also include hours spent towards 

maintaining and conducting readiness testing of the emergency 

engines. However, additionally, the EPA is also proposing that 

stationary emergency engines located at area sources be 

permitted to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently 

allowed under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards 

any non-emergency operation, including operation as part of a 

financial agreement with another entity. The peak shaving 

allowance would expire in 2017. The EPA is specifying that the 

power can only be used at the facility or towards the local 

system, and the engine can only be operated for peak shaving as 
Page 43 of 201 

part of a program with the local distribution system operator. 

The EPA is also clarifying that an engine that exceeds the 

calendar year limitations on non-emergency operation, including 

emergency demand response or peak shaving, will be considered a 

non-emergency engine and subject to the requirements for nonemergency engines for the remaining life of the engine. 

C. Non-Emergency Stationary SI RICE Greater than 500 HP Located 

at Area Sources

1. Background 

 The EPA is also proposing to amend the requirements that 

apply to existing stationary non-emergency 4 stroke SI RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP emissions, 

which are generally natural gas fired engines. Currently, the 

RICE NESHAP requires owners and operators of such engines to 1) 

either meet a CO concentration limit of 47 parts ppmvd at 15 

percent O2 or reduce emissions of CO by 93 percent or more, if 

the engines are 4SLB; and 2) to meet a formaldehyde 

concentration limit of 2.7 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 or reduce 

formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, if the engines are 

4SRB. In both cases, the EPA expects that the standards would be 

met using aftertreatment; oxidation catalysts for 4SLB engines 

and NSCR for 4SRB engines. In addition to these emission 

requirements, owners and operators of existing stationary 4-

stroke engines greater than 500 HP at area sources are also 
Page 44 of 201 

subject to monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

After the final requirements for existing stationary SI 

engines greater than 500 HP at area sources were published on 

August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570), the EPA received petitions from 

Exterran (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0581), the American Petroleum 

Institute (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0582), the Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0584), and the 

Gas Processors Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0587) 

requesting that the EPA reconsider the requirements of the final 

rule. The petitioners expressed many similar concerns. As 

relevant to this rulemaking, petitioners stated that the EPA did 

not take into account the difference in population density and 

subsequently did not consider the difference in health impacts 

in remote versus more heavily populated locations. In the 

petitioners’ opinion, there should be less concern about engines 

that are located farther away from people; the petitioners 

believed that the EPA has substantial latitude in requiring less 

stringent standards for owners and operators of stationary 

engines in remote areas. 

 While the EPA does not share all of the views of the 

petitioners regarding the difference between engines based on 

their location, the EPA does believe that it is reasonable to 

create a subcategory of existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB 
Page 45 of 201 

engines above 500 HP located in areas remote from human 

activity. Engines located in remote areas that are not close to 

significant human activity may be difficult to access, may not 

have electricity or communications, and may be unmanned most of 

the time. The costs of the emission controls, testing, and 

continuous monitoring requirements may be unreasonable when 

compared to the HAP emission reductions that would be achieved, 

considering that the engines are in sparsely populated areas. 

The EPA believes that establishing a subcategory for SI engines 

at area sources of HAP located in sparsely populated areas 

accomplishes the agency’s goals and is adequate in protecting 

public health. 

 The EPA is proposing to subcategorize sparsely populated 

engines using the existing DOT classification system for natural 

gas pipelines. This system classifies locations based on their 

distance to natural gas pipelines covered by the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration safety regulations. 

The DOT system defines a class location unit as an onshore area 

that extends 220 yards or 200 meters on either side of the 

centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) length of 

natural gas pipeline. The DOT approach further classifies 

pipeline locations into Class 1 through Class 4 locations based 

on the number of buildings intended for human occupancy. A Class 

1 location is defined as an offshore area or any class location 
Page 46 of 201 

unit that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human 

occupancy. The DOT classification system also has special 

provisions for locations that lie within 100 yards (91 meters) 

of either a building or a small, well-defined outside area (such 

as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or other 

place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more persons 

on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period, 

and for class location units where buildings with four or more 

stories above ground are prevalent. To be considered remote, a 

source could not fall under one of these special provisions.

Stakeholders from the oil and gas industry have indicated 

to the EPA that the DOT system is well-established and there 

would be substantial overlap between engines on natural gas 

pipelines affected by the rule and covered by the DOT pipeline 

classification system. Incorporating this approach would also 

create harmonization between the EPA and DOT and would reduce 

the implementation and enforcement burden for states. 

Implementation for affected sources would also be less 

burdensome because the system is already in place and used by 

the natural gas pipeline industry and covers the majority of 

these engines. Stakeholders have indicated they are required to 

review the class location status of natural gas pipeline 

segments annually. The EPA believes this approach is reasonable 

for defining the subcategory of remote engines for those engines 

Deleted: . 

Comment [A1]: DOT would classify this as a 

Class 4 area. Please see the attached DOT 

regulations. 

Comment [A2]: We recommend adding this 

sentence for clarity. 
Page 47 of 201 

that are associated with natural gas pipelines. For those 

engines not associated with pipelines, the EPA is using similar 

criteria. An engine would be considered to be in sparsely 

populated areas if within 0.25 mile radius of the engine there 

are 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. EPA 

requests comment on whether the use of these DOT classifications 

are appropriate for airborne emissions and whether, to be 

considered remote, an engine not associated with a natural gas 

pipeline should also need to be farther than 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside 

area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or 

other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. 

The EPA is proposing management practices as generally 

available control technologies for existing stationary SI 4SLB 

and 4SRB area source non-emergency engines located in sparsely 

populated areas. Given the remote location of the engines from 

human activity, the EPA believes that it is appropriate not to 

include requirements that would necessitate aftertreatment and 

extensive testing and monitoring. The EPA has previously 

estimated that the costs of oxidation catalyst for existing 4SLB 

and 4SRB engines above 500 HP at area sources are $310 and $150 

million, for capital and annual costs, respectively. The capital 

Comment [A3]: Thank you for adding this 

comment request. We added some language to 

include a specific question that should be asked too. 
Page 48 of 201 

and annual costs of the RICE NESHAP for existing 4SLB and 4SRB 

engines above 500 HP at area sources would be $30 million and 

$12 million, respectively, if these proposed amendments are 

incorporated into the rule. Creating a subcategory of these 

engines for the ones located in sparsely populated areas and not 

mandating emission controls would significantly reduce the cost 

of the rule for such engines. 

For existing stationary SI 4SLB and 4SRB area source nonemergency engines that are located in populated areas, the EPA 

is proposing an equipment standard that requires the 

installation and operation of a catalyst that will have to be 

tested initially and annually to ensure that the catalyst is 

working properly and reducing emissions as required. In 

addition, these units will be required to have devices to shut 

down the engine if the catalyst is exposed to dangerous 

temperatures or have continuous monitoring equipment installed 

to record catalyst inlet temperatures. The EPA is proposing 

shorter test duration and less rigorous methods than currently 

required while still ensuring that HAP reductions remain at 

expected levels for these engines located in populated areas. 

The specific amendments the EPA is proposing are discussed 

below. 

2. Proposed Amendments 
Page 49 of 201 

 Owners and operators of engines in sparsely populated 

areas would have to conduct a review of the surrounding area 

every 12 months to determine if the nearby population has 

changed. If the engine no longer meets the criteria for a 

sparsely populated area the owner and operator must within 1 

year comply with the emission standards specified below for 

populated areas. The EPA requests comment on whether engines 

that are not associated with pipelines should be required to 

conduct the review less frequently than every 12 months. 

Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB 

greater than 500 HP at area sources that are in sparsely 

populated areas as described above would be required to perform 

the following: 

 Change oil and filter every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first; 

 Inspect spark plugs every 1,440 hours of operation or 

annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary; 

and 

 Inspect all hoses and belts every 1,440 hours of operation 

or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as 

necessary. 

Sources have the option to use an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) of the rule in order to extend the 

specified oil change requirement. The oil analysis must be 
Page 50 of 201 

performed at the same frequency specified for changing the oil 

in Table 2d of the rule. The analysis program must at a minimum 

analyze the following three parameters: Total Acid Number, 

viscosity, and percent water content. The condemning limits for 

these parameters are as follows: Total Acid Number increases by 

more than 3.0 milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram from 

Total Acid Number of the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has 

changed by more than 20 percent from the viscosity of the oil 

when new; or percent water content (by volume) is greater than 

0.5. If all of these condemning limits are not exceeded, the 

engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If 

any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator 

must change the oil within 2 days of receiving the results of 

the analysis; if the engine is not in operation when the results 

of the analysis are received, the engine owner or operator must 

change the oil within 2 days or before commencing operation, 

whichever is later. The owner or operator must keep records of 

the parameters that are analyzed as part of the program, the 

results of the analysis, and the oil changes for the engine. The 

analysis program must be part of the maintenance plan for the 

engine. 

 Owners and operators of existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB 

area source engines above 500 HP in sparsely populated areas 

would also have to operate and maintain the stationary RICE and 
Page 51 of 201 

aftertreatment control device (if any) according to the 

manufacturer's emission-related written instructions or develop 

their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent 

practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. 

 For engines in populated areas, i.e., existing stationary 

4SLB and 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP at area 

sources that are located on DOT Class 2 through Class 4 pipeline 

segments or, for engines not associated with pipelines, that do 

not meet the 0.25 mile radius with 5 or less buildings criteria, 

the EPA is proposing to adopt an equipment standard requiring 

the installation of a catalyst to reduce HAP emissions. Owners 

and operators of existing area source 4SLB non-emergency engines 

greater than 500 HP in populated areas would be required to 

install an oxidation catalyst. Owners and operators of existing 

area source 4SRB non-emergency engines greater than 500 HP in 

populated areas would be required to install NSCR. Owners and 

operators must conduct an initial test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 93 percent reduction in CO emissions 

or a CO concentration level of 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2, if the 

engine is a 4SLB engine. Similarly, owners and operators must 

conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that the 

engine achieves at least a 75 percent CO reduction or a 30 
Page 52 of 201 

percent THC reduction, if the engine is a 4SRB engine. The 

initial test must consist of three test runs. Each test run must 

be of at least 15 minute duration, except that each test run 

conducted using the proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ must consist of one measurement cycle as defined by 

the method and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase 

measurement. To measure CO, emission sources must use the CO 

methods already specified in subpart ZZZZ, or the proposed 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The THC testing must 

be conducted using EPA Method 25A. 

 The owner or operator of both engine types must also use a 

high temperature shutdown device that detects if the catalyst 

inlet temperature is too high, or, alternatively, the owner or 

operator can monitor the catalyst inlet temperature continuously 

and maintain the temperature within the range specified in the 

rule. For 4SLB engines the catalyst inlet temperature must 

remain at or above 450°F and at or below 1,350°F. For 4SRB 

engines the temperature range must be greater than or equal to 

750°F and less than or equal to 1,250°F at the catalyst inlet. 

Owners and operators must in addition to the initial 

performance test conduct annual checks of the catalyst to ensure 

proper catalyst activity. The annual check of the catalyst must 

at a minimum consist of one 15-minute run using the methods 

discussed above, except that each test run conducted using the 
Page 53 of 201 

proposed appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ must consist 

of one measurement cycle as defined by the method and include at 

least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. Owners and 

operators of 4SLB engines must demonstrate during the catalyst 

activity test that the catalyst achieves at least a 93 percent 

reduction in CO emissions or that the engine exhaust CO 

emissions are no more than 47 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. Owners and 

operators of 4SRB engines must demonstrate that their catalyst 

is reducing CO emissions by 75 percent or more, or 

alternatively, that THC emissions are being reduced by at least 

30 percent during the catalyst activity check. 

If the emissions from the engine do not exceed the levels 

required for the initial test or annual checks of the catalyst, 

then the catalyst is considered to be working properly. If the 

emissions exceed the specified pollutant levels in the rule, the 

exceedance(s) is/are not considered a violation, but the owner 

or operator would be required to shut down the engine and take 

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

the catalyst, as appropriate). A follow-up test must be 

conducted within 7 days of the engine being started up again to 

demonstrate that the emission levels are being met. If the 

retest shows that the emissions continue to exceed the specified 

levels, the stationary RICE must again be shut down as soon as 

safely possible, and the engine may not operate, except for 
Page 54 of 201 

purposes of start-up and testing, until the owner/operator 

demonstrates through testing that the emissions do not exceed 

the levels specified. 

D. Stationary Agricultural RICE in San Joaquin Valley 

In the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP, the EPA required 

existing non-emergency CI engines above 300 HP to meet a 

standard of either 70 percent reduction of CO emissions or 49 

ppmvd CO, for engines between 300 and 500 HP, or 23 ppmvd CO for 

engines above 500 HP. The requirements also included testing and 

monitoring provisions. As with all requirements for existing 

engines in that rule, owners and operators were required to meet 

the requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the 

regulations (May 3, 2013). 

Since the finalization of the rule for existing stationary 

CI engines, stakeholders from the agricultural industry in the 

San Joaquin Valley area of California have expressed concern 

regarding the effect of certain of these requirements on engines 

in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) has indicated that there are 17 

stationary CI engines at area sources in San Joaquin Valley 

certified to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89 that were 

installed between January 1 and June 12, 2006. Under the NESHAP, 

stationary CI engines at area sources are existing if 

construction of the engine commenced prior to June 12, 2006. 
Page 55 of 201 

These 17 Tier 3 engines in the San Joaquin Valley, which were 

built to meet stringent emission standards, would not be able to 

comply with the applicable RICE NESHAP emission standards for 

existing engines without further testing and monitoring, and 

possible retrofit with further controls, due to differences in 

the emission standards and testing protocols in the RICE NESHAP 

versus the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR part 89. However, an 

identical engine certified to the Tier 3 standards (or Tier 2 

standards for engines above 560 kilowatts (kW)) in 40 CFR part 

89 that was installed after June 12, 2006, would not have to be 

retrofit in order to comply with the NESHAP. Stationary CI 

engines installed after June 12, 2006, at area sources of HAP 

are required to comply with the NSPS for stationary CI engines, 

which requires engines to be certified to the standards in 40 

CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042, as applicable. Thus, a 2006 

model year stationary CI engine installed after June 12, 2006, 

that is certified to the applicable standards would meet the 

requirements of the NESHAP without further controls or testing. 

While the EPA does not know if other certified Tier 3 engines 

besides these 17 engines in the San Joaquin Valley were 

installed prior to June 12, 2006, EPA believes the same 

rationale should apply to any such engine. 

The EPA believes that the Tier 3 standards (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) are technologically stringent regulations 
Page 56 of 201 

and believes it is unnecessary to require further regulation of 

engines meeting these standards. Engines meeting the Tier 3 

standards typically employed emission control technologies such 

as combustion optimization and better fuel control to meet the 

Tier 3 standards. In order to address the concerns raised by the 

engine owners in the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA is proposing 

changes to amend the requirements for any certified Tier 3 (Tier 

2 for engines above 560 kW) stationary CI engine located at an 

area source and installed before June 12, 2006. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to specify that any existing certified Tier 

3 (Tier 2 for engines above 560 kW) CI engine that was installed 

before June 12, 2006, is in compliance with the NESHAP. This 

amendment would include any existing stationary Tier 3 (Tier 2 

for engines above 560 kW) certified CI engine located at an area 

source of HAP emissions. 

 Another concern brought to the EPA’s attention by the San 

Joaquin Valley agricultural industry is that due to state and 

local requirements in the San Joaquin Valley, many of the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 stationary CI engines that are regulated as existing 

sources under the NESHAP must be replaced in the next few years, 

only a short time after the emission standards for existing 

engines must be met. Specifically, the San Joaquin Valley APCD 

rule for internal combustion engines (Rule 4702) requires Tier 1 

and Tier 2 certified engines to meet Tier 4 standards by January 
Page 57 of 201 

1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date, but no later 

than June 1, 2018. The concern is that owners and operators of 

these engines would have to install aftertreatment by 2013 to 

meet the emission standards of the RICE NESHAP and then only a 

few years later be required to replace their engines per San 

Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4702. The San Joaquin Valley APCD has 

identified 49 Tier 1 engines and 360 Tier 2 engines that are 

scheduled to be replaced under the local rule. The EPA has not 

identified any engines outside the San Joaquin Valley APCD area 

that are in the same or similar situation (i.e., required to be 

replaced shortly after the compliance date for existing 

engines), but the EPA does not preclude the possibility that 

there are such engines in other areas, and requests comment and 

information on other areas that may have similar concerns. 

 The EPA does not think it is appropriate to require 

emission controls on a stationary CI engine that is going to be 

retired only a short time after the rule goes into effect. 

Stationary CI engines would have to comply with this rule by May 

3, 2013, and owners of engines above 300 HP are expected to have 

to install aftertreatment on their engines in order to meet the 

emission standards. The EPA estimates that the one-time cost to 

equip a 500 HP stationary CI engine with the controls necessary 

to meet the emission standards under this rule is close to 

$14,000 and more than $3,000 on a yearly basis, not accounting 
Page 58 of 201 

for additional costs associated with monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting. These engines (equipped with 

aftertreatment) could end up being in operation for less than 2 

years or at most only 5 years before having to be replaced with 

a certified Tier 4 engine, as required by San Joaquin Valley 

District Rule 4702. It would not be reasonable to require the 

engine owner to invest in costly controls and monitoring 

equipment for an engine that will be replaced shortly after the 

installation of the controls. 

Consequently, the EPA is proposing amendments to existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions 

to address this concern. The EPA is proposing to amend the 

requirements for existing stationary Tier 1 and Tier 2 certified 

CI engines located at area sources that are greater than 300 HP 

that are subject to a state or local rule that requires the 

engine to be replaced. The EPA is proposing to allow these 

engines to meet management practices from the applicable May 3, 

2013, compliance date until January 1, 2015, or 12 years after 

installation date (whichever is later), but not later than June 

1, 2018. This proposed change would provide owners enough time 

to replace their engines without mandating a possibly cost 

prohibitive requirement to change all of the engines in a short 

amount of time, while still requiring that replacement of the 

engine or a retrofit of the engine occur relatively quickly 
Page 59 of 201 

after the owner would have to comply with the NESHAP. The EPA is 

proposing that these engines be subject to management practices 

until January 1, 2015, or 12 years after installation date 

(whichever is later), but not later than June 1, 2018, after 

which time the CO emission standards discussed above (and that 

are in Table 2d of the rule) apply. The management practices 

include requirements for when to inspect and replace the engine 

oil and filter, air cleaner, hoses and belts. The complete 

details of which management practices are required are shown in 

Table 2d of the rule. Owners and operators of these existing 

stationary CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions 

that intend to meet management practices rather than the 

emission limits prior to January 1, 2015, or 12 years after 

installation date, but not later than June 1, 2018, must submit 

a notification by March 3, 2013, stating that they intend to use 

this provision and identifying the state or local regulation 

that the engine is subject to. 

E. Remote Areas of Alaska

1. Background 

 The RICE NESHAP currently specifies less stringent 

requirements for existing non-emergency CI engines at area 

sources located in remote areas of Alaska. Remote areas are 

defined as those not accessible by the FAHS. The FAHS includes 

areas with year-round ferry service that are not on the 
Page 60 of 201 

contiguous road system. Under the current regulation, stationary 

non-emergency CI engines at area sources in areas of Alaska that 

are not accessible by the FAHS are subject to management 

practices as opposed to numerical emission standards. 

Following the publication of the final rule in 2010, the 

EPA received requests to expand the definition of remote areas 

of Alaska. Stakeholders asserted that facilities in areas that 

are accessible by the FAHS but are not connected to the Alaska 

Railbelt grid face the same challenges as those in areas not 

accessible by the FAHS. The Alaska Railbelt Grid refers to the 

service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend 

from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These 

utilities are the Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach 

Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer 

Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, and the 

City of Seward Electric System. According to the stakeholders, 

one reason for broadening the definition of remote areas in 

Alaska is high energy costs, which provide a natural incentive 

to run CI engines as little as possible. The cost of energy is 

utilities’ greatest concern in Alaska. Also, the stakeholders 

indicated that extreme weather conditions in certain areas of 

Alaska is another reason for including additional areas in the 

definition of remote areas of Alaska. The climate issue is 

unique to remote areas of Alaska that experience some of the 
Page 61 of 201 

most extreme temperatures in the country. Heavy snowfall and 

high winds are not uncommon in several areas that are accessible 

by the FAHS. For instance, Copper Valley Electric Association 

(CVEA) is a utility accessible by the FAHS, but it includes 

areas that face the same challenges as other communities not 

accessible by the FAHS. The utility operates on an isolated grid 

and relies on diesel power generation. In one of CVEA’s 

territories, Valdez, Alaska, CVEA indicated that this area 

experiences brutal conditions and stated that Valdez is 

considered to have the greatest snowfall (326 inches per winter) 

in any city of the United States. Also, winds at more than 100 

miles per hour are not uncommon for Valdez, Alaska, according to 

CVEA. Temperatures between 40 and 50 below zero are also not 

abnormal, which emphasizes the extreme reliance on power, CVEA 

asserted. Travel times and accessibility are issues on a regular 

basis, but can be additionally exacerbated due to severe 

weather, which in some cases may lead to avalanches and road 

closings. In particular, even if a site is on the FAHS, in the 

event of poor weather conditions and road closings, there are in 

many cases no alternate roads to travel on. Further, access to 

specific isolated sites can also be problematic in particular 

remote areas of Alaska and the problems are unique to Alaska 

because of the infrastructure and environment. For example, 

communities made the case that sources along the AMHS that are 
Page 62 of 201 

only accessible by the AMHS should be treated the same way as 

communities not accessible by the FAHS. The AMHS primarily 

serves passengers and vehicles, and is not intended for 

transporting goods. Therefore, the same methods used to bring in 

goods to communities not on the FAHS are the same as those 

Alaskan villages served only by the AMHS. Goods are typically 

brought in to remote communities by barge and this is another 

example of a scenario that is unique to Alaska. Other arguments 

for expanding the definition of remote areas of Alaska beyond 

those not accessible by the FAHS include very low population 

density in many other remote areas although accessible by the 

FAHS, and the fact that many of these areas are not connected to 

the electric grid and rely on back up diesel generation to 

support fluctuating renewable energy systems. The energy supply 

system is another area that is particularly different in Alaska 

compared to the rest of the country where the majority of 

customers are connected to the grid. Therefore, for the reasons 

discussed, the EPA is proposing expansion of the remote area 

source category. This proposal is supported by the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and communities with 

whom the EPA has discussed this issue. 

2. Proposed Amendments 

 The EPA is proposing to expand the current definition of 

remote areas of Alaska to extend beyond areas that are not 
Page 63 of 201 

accessible by the FAHS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

areas of Alaska that are accessible by the FAHS and that meet 

all of the following criteria are also considered remote and 

subject to management practices under the rule: 

 The stationary CI engine is located in an area not 

connected to the Alaska Railbelt Grid, 

 At least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine 

per year is used for residential purposes, and 

 The system capacity is less than 12 megawatts, or the 

engine is used exclusively for backup power for renewable 

energy and is used less than 500 hours per year on a 10-

year rolling average. 

The EPA is proposing limiting the remote classification to 

engines that are used at least partially for residential 

purposes, where the impact of higher energy costs is of greatest 

concern. The classification is further limited to sources that 

are used infrequently as backup for renewable power, or that are 

at smaller capacity facilities, which are generally in more 

sparsely populated areas. 

F. Miscellaneous Corrections and Revisions

 The EPA is making some minor corrections to the stationary 

engine rules to address miscellaneous issues. The EPA is making 

some minor revisions in the rules to correct mistakes in the 
Page 64 of 201 

current rules or to clarify the rules. The revisions are as 

follows: 

 Revising Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

to correct language requiring the pressure drop to be at 

plus or minus 10 percent 100 percent load for all engines. 

The engines that were regulated in 2010 are not subject to 

the load requirements and therefore the EPA is correcting 

these tables to make this clear. 

 Adding a footnote to Table 1b of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ stating that sources can petition the Administrator 

for a different temperature range consistent with Table 2b 

of the rule. 

 Correcting rows 8 and 10 in Table 2d of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ to indicate that the requirements apply to 

non-emergency, non-black start stationary RICE greater than 

500 HP that are 4SLB and 4SRB that operate more than 24 

hours per year, as intended in the original rule. 

 Revising the language in §63.6625(b) of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ that states “...in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section” to “in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section.” 
Page 65 of 201 

 Changing Tables 2c and 2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 

where it currently specifies to inspect air cleaner, to 

also specify that it must be replaced as necessary. 

 Revising §63.6620(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ to 

indicate that testing must be conducted within plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load for stationary RICE 

greater than 500 HP located at a major source (except 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE greater than 500 

HP located at a major source) that are subject to testing. 

 Specifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, the operating limitations (pressure drop and 

catalyst inlet temperature) in Tables 1b and 2b of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ do not have to be met during startup. 

 For consistency, and as provided in the original RICE 

NESHAP for other stationary RICE, clarifying in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ that the existing stationary RICE 

regulated in 2010 (i.e., engines constructed before June 

12, 2006 that are less than or equal to 500 HP located at 

major sources or engines located at area sources) must burn 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more 

of the gross heat input on an annual basis in order to 

qualify as a landfill or digester gas engine under the 

rule. 
Page 66 of 201 

 Clarifying §60.4207(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII to 

specify that owners and operators of stationary CI engines 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that are subject to the 

subpart that use diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b), except owners 

and operators may use up any diesel fuel acquired prior to 

October 1, 2010, that does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

 Adding appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which 

includes procedures that can be used for measuring CO 

emissions from existing stationary 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE above 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that are 

complying with the emission limits in Table 2d of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

 Reinstating the footnotes for Table 2 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. The footnotes were inadvertently removed when 

the rule was amended on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37954). 

 Adding “part 60” in Table 4 of the NESHAP, in row 2 where 

it refers to 40 CFR appendix A. 

 Clarifying in §63.6625(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 

that a continuous emission monitoring system is only 

required to be installed at the outlet of the control 
Page 67 of 201 

device for engines that are complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of CO. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that use gasoline. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are rich burn engines that use LPG. 

 Clarifying that, as was intended in the rule adding these 

requirements, all of the standards for stationary SI RICE 

in §60.4231(d) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ are for 

stationary SI RICE that are not gasoline engines or rich 

burn engines that use LPG. 

G. Compliance Date

 The EPA has received questions regarding whether the 

compliance dates for engines impacted by the 2010 amendments and 

this proposed reconsideration will be extended. Affected sources 

that may be impacted by this action have expressed concern about 

having sufficient time to comply with the rule by the compliance 

date, which is May 3, 2013, for existing stationary CI RICE and 

October 19, 2013, for existing stationary SI RICE. Sources 

impacted by this reconsideration are particularly concerned with 
Page 68 of 201 

compliance in the event that the EPA does not finalize changes 

that are substantially similar to the changes being proposed in 

this action. The EPA does not intend to extend the May 3, 2013, 

and October 19, 2013, compliance dates, because there are many 

engines that must meet those compliance dates that are not 

impacted by this reconsideration. However, the EPA notes that 

sources that are affected by the reconsideration and that may 

need additional time to install controls to comply with the 

applicable requirements can request up to an additional year to 

install controls, as specified in 40 CFR 63.6(i). The EPA 

requests comment regarding whether special consideration should 

be given to engines whose requirements would be reduced by this 

proposal if, in the final rule, the EPA does not finalize the 

proposed reduced requirements. 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimates that the rule with the proposed 

amendments incorporated will reduce emissions from existing 

stationary RICE as shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The 

emissions reductions the EPA previously estimated for the 2010 

amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown for comparison. 

Reductions are shown for the year 2013, which is the first year 

the final RICE NESHAP will be implemented for existing 

stationary RICE. 
Page 69 of 201 

Table 1. Summary of Reductions for Existing Stationary RICE 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 

in the year 2013 

2010 Final Rule 

2010 Final Rule with 

these Proposed 

Amendments 

CI SI CI SI

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

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

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

NOx N/A 96,479 N/A 9,648 

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

 The EPA estimates that more than 900,000 stationary CI 

engines will be subject to the rule in total, but only a small 

number of stationary CI engines are affected by the proposed 

amendments in this action. It is estimated that approximately 

330,000 stationary SI engines will be subject to the rule in 

total; however, only a subset of stationary SI engines are 

affected by the proposed amendments in this action. The decrease 

in estimated reductions for SI engines is primarily due to 

proposed amendments to the requirements for existing 4SRB and 

4SLB SI engines larger than 500 HP at area sources of HAP that 

are in remote areas. Those engines were required by the 2010 

rule to meet emission limits that were expected to require the 

installation of aftertreatment to reduce emissions; under these 

proposed amendments, those engines are required to meet 

management practices that would not require the installation of 

aftertreatment. Further information regarding the estimated 
Page 70 of 201 

reductions of this final rule can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate any reductions 

associated with the minor changes to the NSPS for stationary CI 

and SI engines. 

B. What are the cost impacts?

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

cost of the original 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments. The EPA 

estimates that with these proposed amendments incorporated the 

cost of the rule for existing stationary RICE will be as shown 

in Table 2 of this preamble. The costs the EPA previously 

estimated for the 2010 amendments to the RICE NESHAP are shown 

for comparison. The costs that were previously estimated are 

shown in the original year ($2008 for CI and $2009 for SI), as 

well as escalated to 2010 dollars. 

Table 2. Summary of Cost Impacts for Existing Stationary RICE

Engine 2010 Final Rule 2010 Final Rule with 

these Proposed Amendments 

Total Annual Cost 

SI $253 million 

($2009) 

$251 million 

($2010) $115 million ($2010)

CI $373 million 

($2008) 

$375 million 

($2010) $373 million ($2010)

Total Capital Cost

SI $383 million 

($2009) 

$380 million 

($2010) $103 million ($2010) 

CI $744 million 

($2008) 

$748 million 

($2010) $740 million ($2010) 
Page 71 of 201 

Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts of the 

proposed amendments, including the cost of the proposed 

amendments in 2010 dollars, can be found in the memorandum 

titled, “RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Amendments - Cost and 

Environmental Impacts,” which is available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0708). The EPA did not estimate costs associated 

with the changes to the NSPS for stationary CI and SI engines. 

The changes to the NSPS are minor and are not expected to impact 

the costs of those rules. 

C. What are the benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of 

these rules will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP 

as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including 

CO, NOx and VOC. NOx and VOC are precursors to PM2.5 (particles

smaller than 2.5 microns) and ozone. The criteria pollutant 

benefits are considered co-benefits for these rules. For these 

rules, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits 

associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from emission reductions 

of NOx and directly emitted PM2.5. 

The EPA previously estimated that the monetized co-benefits 

in 2013 of the stationary CI NESHAP would be $940 million to 

$2,300 million (2008 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$850 million to $2,100 million (2008 dollars) at a 7-percent 
Page 72 of 201 

discount rate.5

 For stationary SI engines, EPA previously 

estimated that the monetized co-benefits in 2013 would be $510 

million to $1,200 million (2009 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $460 million to $1,100 million (2009 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate.6

The proposed amendments are expected to reduce the overall 

emission reductions of the rules. In addition to revising the 

anticipated emission reductions, we have also updated the 

methodology used to calculate the co-benefits to be consistent 

with methods used in more recent rulemakings, which is 

summarized below and discussed in more detail in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA). We estimate the monetized co-benefits of 

the proposed amendments of the CI NESHAP in 2013 to be $770 

million to $1,900 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate and $690 million to $1,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. For SI engines, we estimate the monetized 

co-benefits of the proposed amendments in 2013 to be $62 million 

to $150 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

 

5

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Compression Ignition 

Engines NESHAP: Final Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

February. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/CIRICENESHAPRIA2-17-

0cleanpublication.pdf. 

6

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (SI) RICE 

NESHAP: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/riceriafinal.pdf. 
Page 73 of 201 

$55 million to $140 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates 

fall between these two estimates.7

 A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates for CI and SI engines at discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent is in Table 3 of this preamble. 

Table 3. Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Proposed 

Amendments to the NESHAP for Stationary CI and SI Engines 

(millions of 2010 dollars)a, b

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tons per 

year) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(3 percent 

Discount) 

Total monetized 

co-benefits 

(7 percent 

Discount) 

Original 2010 Final Rulesc

Stationary CI Engines 

Total 

Benefits 

2,844 PM2.5

27,395 VOC $950 to $2,300 $860 to $2,100 

Stationary SI Engines 

Total 

Benefits 

96,479 NOx 

30,907 VOC $510 to $1,300 $470 to $1,100 

2010 Final Rules with these Proposed Amendments 

Stationary CI Engines 

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

2,818 $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Stationary SI Engines 

NOx 9,648 $62 to $150 $55 to $140 a

 All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded 

to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

 

7

 Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter 

in the U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274. 
Page 74 of 201 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do 

not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or 

visibility impairment. 

b

 PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to 

Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The benefits analysis for the 2010 final rules applied outdated benefit-per-ton estimates compared to the updated 

estimates described in this preamble and reflected monetized cobenefits for VOC emissions, which limits direct comparability 

with the monetized co-benefits estimated for these proposed 

rules. In addition, these estimates have been updated from their 

original currency years to 2010$, so the rounded estimates for 

the 2010 final rules may not match the original RIAs. 

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2013 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order 

to meet these rules. To estimate human health co-benefits of 

these rules, the EPA used benefit-per-ton factors to quantify 

the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and monetized 

benefits based on changes in directly emitted PM2.5 and NOx 

emissions. These benefit-per-ton factors were derived using the 

general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell (2009).8

 This approach uses a model to convert emissions 

 

8

 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of 

location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 

health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual 

Atmos Health (2009) 2:169–176. 
Page 75 of 201 

of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes in human health associated 

with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 

emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

However, for these rules, we utilized air quality modeling of 

emissions in the “Non-EGU Point other” category because we do 

not have modeling specifically for stationary engines.9,10 The 

primary difference between the estimates used in this analysis 

and the estimates reported in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) 

is the air quality modeling data utilized. While the air quality 

data used in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) reflects broad 

pollutant/source category combinations, such as all non-EGU 

stationary point sources, the air quality modeling data used in 

this analysis has narrower sector categories. In addition, the 

updated air quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions 

data (2005 rather than 2001) and has a higher spatial resolution 

(12km rather than 36 km grid cells). The benefits methodology, 

 

9

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Technical support 

document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5

precursors from other point sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 10 Stationary engines are included in the other non-EGU point 

source category. If the affected stationary engines are more 

rural than the average of the non-EGU sources modeled, then it 

is possible that the benefits may be somewhat less than we have 

estimated here. The TSD provides the geographic distribution of 

the air quality changes associated with this sector. It is 

important to emphasize that this modeling represents the best 

available information on the air quality impact on a per ton 

basis for these sources. 
Page 76 of 201 

such as health endpoints assessed, risk estimates applied, and 

valuation techniques applied did not change. As a result, the 

benefit-per-ton estimates presented herein better reflect the 

geographic areas and populations likely to be affected by this 

sector. However, these updated estimates still have similar 

limitations as all national-average benefit-per-ton estimates in 

that they reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled 

emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions 

in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability 

in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health 

incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific 

location. 

We apply these national benefit-per-ton estimates 

calculated for this sector separately for directly emitted PM2.5

and NOx and multiply them by the corresponding emission 

reductions. The sector modeling does not provide estimates of 

the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing VOC 

emissions, but these unquantified benefits are generally small 

compared to other PM2.5 precursors. More information regarding the 

derivation of the benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is 

available in the technical support document, which is available 

in the docket. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 
Page 77 of 201 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. The main PM2.5 precursors affected by these rules 

are directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX. Even though we assume that all 

fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit-perton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive 

population exposure. For example, directly emitted PM2.5 has a 

lower benefit-per-ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does 

not form as much PM2.5; thus, the exposure would be lower, and 

the monetized health benefits would be lower. 

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based 

both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments 

elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the 

uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and 

premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one 

based on the American Cancer Society cohort study11 and the 

 

11 Pope, et al., 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, 

and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 
Page 78 of 201 

extended Six Cities cohort study.12 In the RIA for this proposed 

amendments rule, which is available in the docket, we also 

include benefits estimates derived from the expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

The EPA strives to use the best available science to 

support our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation 

of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 

model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with 

reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this finding, we have 

conformed the previous threshold sensitivity analysis to the 

current state of the PM science by incorporating a new “Lowest 

Measured Level” (LML) assessment in the RIA accompanying these 

rules. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the 

level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, the 

EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to 

quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related co-benefits for these 

rules would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of 

 

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

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and 

Critical Care Medicine 173: 667-672. 
Page 79 of 201 

PM2.5. For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are 

not available due to time or resource limitations, and thus, we 

are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each 

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the Pope, 

et al. (2002) study, 77 percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3

). Using the Laden, et al. (2006) study, 25 

percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3

. 

It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in 

PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort 

studies. This fact is important, because, as we model avoided 

premature deaths among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5, we 

have lower confidence in levels below the LML for each study. 

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 

benefit analysis for these rules provides a reasonable 
Page 80 of 201 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) RIA 

because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for these rules, and using a 

benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source of 

uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis13 provides an indication of the sensitivity of 

our results to various assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOx, ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for these 

proposed amendments, we include a qualitative assessment of 

these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendments. 

 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Proposed 

amendments Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 

Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 
Page 81 of 201 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is available in 

the docket. 

D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts?

The EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health, 

environmental or energy impacts as a result of these proposed 

amendments. 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation 

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its 

final decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects 

of this proposed rule from all interested parties. Whenever 

applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should be 

submitted to allow the EPA to make maximum use of the comments. 

The agency invites all parties to coordinate their data 

collection activities with the EPA to facilitate mutually 

beneficial and cost-effective data submissions. A 

redline/strikeout version of the complete NESHAP for stationary 

RICE, which shows the changes that are being proposed in this 

action, is available from the rulemaking docket. 

 The EPA is seeking specific comment on the proposal to 

temporarily allow stationary emergency engines located at area 

sources to apply the 50 hours per year that is currently allowed 

under §63.6640(f) for non-emergency operation towards any type 
Page 82 of 201 

of non-emergency operation, including peak shaving and nonemergency demand response if the peak shaving is done as part of 

a peak shaving (load management) program with the local 

distribution system operator. The EPA is proposing that the 

allowance be removed after April 16, 2017. 

The EPA recognizes that the electricity grid achieves 

demand response and grid stability with and without the use of 

emergency stationary RICE. Alternative approaches include 

reductions or shifts in energy use, electricity storage, 

distribution automation, microgrids, natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines, and grid-connected distributed generation, 

including non-emergency engines and combined heat and power. 

Many of these approaches can provide additional benefits, such 

as additional energy efficiency, lower costs, shorter 

electricity outage times, and better integration of renewable 

energy generation into the electricity grid. Several studies 

project a significant future potential for using less energy in 

homes, buildings, and industry during times of peak electricity 

demand. The EPA seeks comment on how these investments may 

affect the number of hours which emergency stationary RICE are 

needed in the future to address electricity peak shaving and 

grid stability. 

 The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on the 

proposed criteria for expanding the current definition of remote 
Page 83 of 201 

areas of Alaska beyond areas that are not accessible by the 

FAHS. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposed system 

capacity limitation of 12 megawatts and the alternative 500 hour 

cap on annual usage (based on a 10-year rolling average) are the 

appropriate criteria for distinguishing the areas of Alaska 

that, while accessible by the FAHS, have the same unique 

challenges as the areas that are not accessible by the FAHS. 

The EPA is also seeking information related to irrigation 

pump engine sizes. During the 2010 rulemaking, the EPA relied 

upon several sources to determine the potential number of 

irrigation engines that may be impacted by the rule. Using these 

sources, the EPA estimated that the vast majority of the 

existing irrigation engines were less than or equal to 300 HP. 

The EPA received several comments confirming this estimation. 

The EPA seeks comprehensive, nationwide information on the size 

of existing irrigation engines to either confirm or refute our 

understanding of existing irrigation engine sizes; this 

information will assist EPA in assessing the impacts of the 2010 

rule on existing irrigation engines. The EPA has placed 

information in the docket for this rulemaking on the number of 

irrigation engines provided by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture after the 2010 RICE NESHAP amendments were 

finalized. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 
Page 84 of 201 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the 

EPA prepared a RIA of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits, compliance costs and 

net benefits for the 2010 rule with the proposed amendments to 

the stationary CI engines NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent is in Table 4 of this preamble. The summary for 

stationary SI engines is included in Table 5 of this preamble. 

OMB Circular A-4 recommends that analysis of a change in an 

existing regulatory program use a baseline that assumes “no 

change” in the existing regulation. For purposes of this rule, 

however, the EPA has decided that it is appropriate to assume a 

Comment [A4]: please include this clarification 
Page 85 of 201 

baseline in which the original 2010 rule did not exist. The EPA 

feels that this baseline is appropriate because .... 

Table 4. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the 2010 Rule with the Proposed Amendments to 

the Stationary CI Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 

dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $770 to $1,900 $690 to $1,700 

Total Compliance 

Costsc $373 $373 

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

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

Table 5. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs and 

Net benefits for the 2010 Rule with the Proposed Amendments to 

the Stationary SI Engine NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2010 

dollars)a 

3-Percent Discount 

Rate 

7-Percent Discount 

Rate 

Total Monetized 

Benefitsb $62 to $150 $55 to $140 

Total Compliance $115 $115 

Comment [A5]: As a follow-up to the discussion 

on Friday, this language reflects our understanding 

that EPA is not following A-4 here. In keeping with 

the directives of EO12866 and 13563, we think EPA 

should provide a few sentences here explaining why 

the baseline it has chosen is appropriate even though 

it’s a deviation from A-4. 

Comment [A6]: Need this clarification in the 

title, otherwise the chart is misleading. 

Comment [A7]: Same comment as above 
Page 86 of 201 

Costsc

Net Benefits $-53 to $35 $-60 to $25 

Non-Monetized 

Benefits 

Health effects from exposure to HAP 

Health effects from direct exposure to NO2

and ozone 

Health effects from PM2.5 exposure from VOC 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment a

 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013) and are 

rounded to two significant figures. 

b

 The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5. Co-benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) 

to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of 

effects estimates by particle type. 

c

 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7- 

percent discount rate. 

For more information on the cost-benefit analysis, please 

refer to the RIA for these proposed amendments, which is 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection 

burden. This action does not impose an information collection 

burden because the agency is not requiring any additional 

recordkeeping, reporting, notification or other requirements in 

these proposed amendments. The changes being proposed in this 

action do not affect information collection, but include 

revisions to emission standards and other minor issues. However, 

the OMB has previously approved the information collection 
Page 87 of 201 

requirements contained in the existing regulations under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0548. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. The companies owning facilities with affected RICE can be 

grouped into small and large categories using SBA general size 
Page 88 of 201 

standard definitions. Size standards are based on industry 

classification codes (i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that each company uses to 

identify the industry or industries in which they operate. The 

SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment, 

annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for 

electricity generating units—EGUs) of the owning entity. These 

thresholds vary by industry and are evaluated based on the 

primary industry classification of the affected companies. In 

cases where companies are classified by multiple NAICS codes, 

the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the NAICS code with 

the highest employee or revenue size standard) was used. 

As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across 

several industries use affected CI and SI stationary RICE; 

therefore, a number of size standards are utilized in this 

analysis. For the 15 industries identified at the 6-digit NAICS 

code represented in this analysis, the employment size standard 

(where it applies) varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The 

annual sales standard (where it applies) is as low as 0.75 

million dollars and as high as 33.5 million dollars. In 

addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small 

business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as 

having a total electric output of 4 million megawatt-hours (MWhr) in the previous fiscal year. The specific SBA size standard 
Page 89 of 201 

is identified for each affected industry within the industry 

profile to support this economic analysis. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on the economic impact of 

this action to all affected small entities across all industries 

affected. The percentage of small entities impacted by this 

proposal having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of 

their sales is less than 2 percent according to the small entity 

analysis. We conclude that there is no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities for this rule. 

For more information on the small entity impacts associated 

with the rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small 

Business Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be 

found in the RIA for each of the rules affected by this action. 

Although the proposed reconsideration rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the rule 

on small entities. When developing the revised standards, EPA 

took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small 

entities were minimal. EPA conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options and 

the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and 
Page 90 of 201 

reporting. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this preamble, 

EPA proposes to reduce regulatory requirements for a variety of 

area sources affected under each of the RICE rules with 

amendments to the final RICE rules promulgated in 2010. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. The EPA is proposing management practices for 

certain existing engines located at area sources and is 

proposing amendments that will provide owners and operators with 

alternative and less expensive compliance demonstration methods. 

As a result of these proposed changes, the EPA anticipates a 

substantial reduction in the cost burden associated with this 

rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The changes being proposed in this action by the 

agency will mostly affect stationary engine owners and operators 
Page 91 of 201 

and will not affect small governments. The proposed amendments 

will lead to a reduction in the cost burden. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. This proposed action primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant economic costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA 

and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
Page 92 of 201 

apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 

technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action reduces the 

burden of the rule on owners and operators of stationary engines 

by providing less burdensome compliance demonstration methods to 

owners and operators and greater flexibility in the operation of 

emergency engines. As a result of these proposed changes, the 

EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the cost burden 

associated with this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Page 93 of 201 

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 involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. While the agency identified two voluntary consensus standards 

as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use it in 

this rulemaking. The two candidate voluntary consensus 

standards, ISO 14965:2000(E) and EN 12619 (1999), identified 

would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The search and review results have been 

documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. 

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
Page 94 of 201 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. 

 The EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to determine 

whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the reconsideration of this final 

rule, as the EPA does not have specific information about the 

location of the stationary RICE affected by this rule. Comment [A8]: Based on the fact that an engine 

can be classified as “remote” if it is 101 yards from a 

playground (or 201 meters from an apartment 

complex), this statement does not seem accurate – 

while this may be true for some of the engines, 

others could be in populated areas, right? 

Deleted: Although the EPA does not 

have specific engine location 

information, to the extent this 

rule achieves fewer reductions than 

the original rule, the decrease in 

reductions is primarily occurring 

in very remote areas that are 

sparsely populated.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source 

Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Page 95 of 201 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 60 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

40 CFR part 63 

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 96 of 201

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart IIII—[amended]

1. Section 60.4207 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4207 What fuel requirements must I meet if I am an owner or 

operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine subject 

to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 (b) Beginning October 1, 2010, owners and operators of 

stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart with a displacement of 

less than 30 liters per cylinder that use diesel fuel must use 

diesel fuel that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b) for 

nonroad diesel fuel, except that any existing diesel fuel 

purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior to October 1, 2010, may 

be used until depleted. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 60.4211 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 
Page 97 of 201

§60.4211 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 
Page 98 of 201

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (f)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 
Page 99 of 201

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 3. Section 60.4219 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4219 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4211(f) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 
Page 100 of 201

requirements specified in §60.4211(f), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4211(f). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4211(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJJJ—[amended]

4. Section 60.4231 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§60.4231 What emission standards must I meet if I am a 

manufacturer of stationary SI internal combustion engines or 

equipment containing such engines?
Page 101 of 201

* * * * * 

(b) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2), or manufactured on or after 

the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary 

ICE with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI 

internal combustion engine manufacturers must certify their 

emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 

HP that use gasoline and that are manufactured on or after the 

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

standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II engines, and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cubic centimeters (cc) that use gasoline 

to the certification emission standards and other requirements 

for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 102 of 201

(c) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

must certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power 

greater than 19 KW (25 HP) (except emergency stationary ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) 

that are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are 

manufactured on or after the applicable date in §60.4230(a)(2) , 

or manufactured on or after the applicable date in 

§60.4230(a)(4) for emergency stationary ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than or equal to 130 HP, to the 

certification emission standards and other requirements for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. Stationary SI internal 

combustion engine manufacturers must certify their emergency 

stationary SI ICE greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP that 

are rich burn engines that use LPG and that are manufactured on 

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

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, and other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 

CFR part 90. Stationary SI internal combustion engine 

manufacturers may certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power less than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total 

displacement less than or equal to 1,000 cc that are rich burn 

engines that use LPG to the certification emission standards and 

other requirements for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 
Page 103 of 201

(d) Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers 

who choose to certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum 

engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 75 KW (100 

HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use LPG and 

emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power greater 

than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) under the voluntary 

manufacturer certification program described in this subpart 

must certify those engines to the certification emission 

standards for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 1048. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers who 

choose to certify their emergency stationary SI ICE greater than 

25 HP and less than 130 HP (except gasoline and rich burn 

engines that use LPG), must certify those engines to the Phase 1 

emission standards in 40 CFR 90.103, applicable to class II 

engines, for new nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. 

Stationary SI internal combustion engine manufacturers may 

certify their stationary SI ICE with a maximum engine power less 

than or equal to 30 KW (40 HP) with a total displacement less 

than or equal to 1,000 cc (except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use LPG) to the certification emission standards for new 

nonroad SI engines in 40 CFR part 90. For stationary SI ICE with 

a maximum engine power greater than 19 KW (25 HP) and less than 

75 KW (100 HP) (except gasoline and rich burn engines that use 

LPG and emergency stationary ICE with a maximum engine power 
Page 104 of 201

greater than 25 HP and less than 130 HP) manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2011, manufacturers may choose to certify these 

engines to the standards in Table 1 to this subpart applicable 

to engines with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 

100 HP and less than 500 HP. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.4243 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§60.4243 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner 

or operator of a stationary SI internal combustion engine?

* * * * * 

(d) If you own or operate an emergency stationary ICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary ICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

ICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 
Page 105 of 201

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary ICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraph (d)(3) of this section counts as part of 

the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph 

(d)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency ICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 
Page 106 of 201

 (ii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for emergency 

demand response for periods in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission 

operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA 

Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy 

Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary ICE may be operated for up to 50 

hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 

hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and 

testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency 

situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency 

demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part of a 

financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 6. Section 60.4248 is amended by revising the definition of 

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine” to read as 

follows: 

§60.4248 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Page 107 of 201

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets 

all of the criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition. All emergency stationary ICE must comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d) in order to be considered 

emergency stationary ICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

requirements specified in §60.4243(d), then it is not considered 

to be an emergency stationary ICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary ICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 

production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water 

in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary ICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §60.4243(d). 

 (3) The stationary ICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§60.4243(d)(2)(ii) or (iii). 
Page 108 of 201

* * * * * 

7. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 –- Requirements for 

Performance Tests 

As stated in §60.4244, you must comply with the following 

requirements for performance tests within 10 percent of 100 

percent peak (or the highest achievable) load: 

For each Complying 

with the 

requirement 

to 

You must Using According 

to the 

following 

requirement

s 

1. 

Stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

demonstrati

ng 

compliance 

according 

to 

§60.4244. 

a. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of NOx

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for NOx

concentrati

on. 
Page 109 of 201

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for NOx 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

NOx at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

7E of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 
Page 110 of 201

b. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of CO in 

the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for CO 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 
Page 111 of 201

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for CO 

concentrati

on. 

v. Measure 

CO at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

ASTM Method 

D6522-

00(2005)a

, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

c. limit 

the 

concentrati

on of VOC 

in the 

stationary 

SI internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

(1) Method 

1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

Appendix A.

(a) If 

using a 

control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must 

be located 

at the 

outlet of 

the control 

device. 
Page 112 of 201

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentrati

on of the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

(2) Method 

3, 3A, or 

3Bb

 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A 

or ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005) a. 

(b) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

O2

concentrati

on must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

s for VOC 

concentrati

on. 

iii. If 

necessary, 

determine 

the exhaust 

flowrate of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust; 

(3) Method 

2 or 19 of 

40 CFR part 

60. 

iv. If 

necessary, 

measure 

moisture 

content of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine 

exhaust at 

the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(4) Method 

4 of 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A, 

Method 320 

of 40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(c) 

Measurement

s to 

determine 

moisture 

must be 

made at the 

same time 

as the 

measurement

for VOC 

concentrati

on. 
Page 113 of 201

v. Measure 

VOC at the 

exhaust of 

the 

stationary 

internal 

combustion 

engine. 

(5) 

Methods 25A 

and 18 of 

40 CFR part 

60, 

appendix A, 

Method 25A 

with the 

use of a 

methane 

cutter as 

described 

in 40 CFR 

1065.265, 

Method 18 

or 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

Ac,d, Method 

320 of 40 

CFR part 

63, 

appendix A, 

or ASTM D 

6348-03 

(incorporat

ed by 

reference, 

see 

§60.17). 

(d) Results 

of this 

test 

consist of 

the average 

of the 

three 1-

hour or 

longer 

runs. 

a

 ASTM D6522-00 is incorporated by reference; see 40 CFR 60.17. 

Also, you may petition the Administrator for approval to use 

alternative methods for portable analyzer. 

b

 You may use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, 

for measuring the O2 content of the exhaust gas as an alternative 

to EPA Method 3B. 

c

 You may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

provided that you conduct an adequate presurvey test prior to 

the emissions test, such as the one described in OTM 11 on EPA’s 

website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm11.pdf). d

 You may use ASTM D6420-99 (2004), Test Method for Determination 

of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry as an alternative to EPA Method 

18 for measuring total nonmethane organic. 

PART 63--[AMENDED]
Page 114 of 201

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart ZZZZ--[amended] 

9. Section 63.6585 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * * 

(f) The emergency stationary RICE listed in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (3) of this section are not subject to this 

subpart. The stationary RICE must meet the definition of an 

emergency stationary RICE in §63.6675, which includes operating 

according to the provisions specified in §63.6640(f). 

(1) Existing residential emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(2) Existing commercial emergency stationary RICE located 

at an area source of HAP emissions. 

(3) Existing institutional emergency stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP emissions. 

10. Section 63.6590 is amended by removing paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) through (viii). 

11. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Page 115 of 201

(a) * * * 

(1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding 

existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of 

more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations and other requirements no 

later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency 

CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, an existing 

stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 

500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an 

existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP 

emissions, you must comply with the applicable emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements no 

later than May 3, 2013. If you have an existing stationary SI 

RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions, or an existing 

stationary SI RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, 

you must comply with the applicable emission limitations, 

operating limitations, and other requirements no later than 

October 19, 2013. 

* * * * * 

 12. Section 63.6602 is revised to read as follows: 
Page 116 of 201

§63.6602 What emission limitations and other requirements must 

I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions?

If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a 

site rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission 

limitations and other requirements in Table 2c to this subpart 

which apply to you. Compliance with the numerical emission 

limitations established in this subpart is based on the results 

of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the testing 

requirements and procedures in §63.6620 and Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

13. Section 63.6603 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (b); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6603 What emission limitations, operating limitations, and 

other requirements must I meet if I own or operate an existing 

stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?

* * * * * 

 (b) If you own or operate an existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 

at an area source of HAP that meets either paragraph (b)(1) or 
Page 117 of 201

(b)(2) of this section, you do not have to meet the numerical CO 

emission limitations specified in Table 2d of this subpart. 

Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP that meet 

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section must meet the 

management practices that are shown for stationary non-emergency 

CI RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to 300 HP in 

Table 2d of this subpart. 

 (1) The area source is located in an area of Alaska that is 

not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS). 

 (2) The stationary RICE is located at an area source that 

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

section. 

 (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska 

Marine Highway System (AMHS), or the stationary RICE operation 

is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to 

the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt 

Grid. 

 (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the 

stationary RICE on an annual basis is used for residential 

purposes. 

 (iii) The generating capacity of the area source is less 

than 12 megawatts, or the stationary RICE is used exclusively 
Page 118 of 201

for backup power for renewable energy and is used less than 500 

hrs per year on a 10 year rolling average. 

 (c) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and that is 

subject to an enforceable state or local standard that requires 

the engine to be replaced no later than June 1, 2018, you may 

until January 1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date 

of the engine (whichever is later), but not later than June 1, 

2018, choose to comply with the management practices that are 

shown for stationary non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of 

less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d of this subpart instead 

of the applicable emission limitations in Table 2d, operating 

limitations in Table 2b, and crankcase ventilation system 

requirements in §63.6625(g). You must comply with the emission 

limitations in Table 2d and operating limitations in Table 2b 

that apply for non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of more 

than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP emissions by 

January 1, 2015, or 12 years after the installation date of the 

engine (whichever is later), but not later than June 1, 2018. 

You must also comply with the crankcase ventilation system 

requirements in §63.6625(g) by January 1, 2015, or 12 years 
Page 119 of 201

after the installation date of the engine (whichever is later), 

but not later than June 1, 2018. 

 (d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 3 (Tier 2 for 

engines above 560 kW) emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 

89.112, you may comply with the requirements under this part by 

meeting the requirements for Tier 3 engines (Tier 2 for engines 

above 560 kW) in 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII instead of the 

emission limitations and other requirements that would otherwise 

apply under this part for existing non-emergency CI RICE with a 

site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source of HAP 

emissions. 

 (e) An existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary 

RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP located at area 

sources of HAP must meet the definition of remote stationary 

RICE in §63.6675 on the initial compliance date for the engine, 

October 19, 2013, in order to be considered a remote stationary 

RICE under this subpart. Owners and operators of existing nonemergency SI 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of 

more than 500 HP located at area sources of HAP that meet the 

definition of remote stationary RICE in §63.6675 of this subpart 

as of October 19, 2013 must evaluate the status of their 

stationary RICE every 12 months. Owners and operators must keep 
Page 120 of 201

records of the initial and annual evaluation of the status of 

the engine. If the evaluation indicates that the stationary RICE 

no longer meets the definition of remote stationary RICE in 

§63.6675 of this subpart, the owner or operator must comply with 

all of the requirements for existing non-emergency SI 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 HP 

located at area sources of HAP that are not remote stationary 

RICE within one year of the evaluation. 

 14. Section 63.6604 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.6604 What fuel requirements must I meet if I own or operate 

an existing stationary CI RICE?

If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 300 

brake HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder 

that uses diesel fuel, you must use diesel fuel that meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad diesel fuel. 

Existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE located in Guam, 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, or at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) are exempt from the 

requirements of this section. 

15. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 
Page 121 of 201

§63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

 (a) You must be in compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in 

this subpart that apply to you at all times. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I 

use?

* * * * * 

(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this 

subpart. If you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE 

that is subject to performance testing, you do not need to start 

up the engine solely to conduct the performance test. Owners and 

operators of a non-operational engine can conduct the 

performance test when the engine is started up again. The test 

must be conducted at any load condition within plus or minus 10 

percent of 100 percent load for the stationary RICE listed in 

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

(1) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 
Page 122 of 201

(2) New non-emergency 4SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than or equal to 250 brake HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions. 

(3) New non-emergency 2SLB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of 

HAP emissions. 

(4) New non-emergency CI stationary RICE with a site rating 

of greater than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

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

determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement: 

Where: 

Ci = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device inlet, 

Co = concentration of CO, THC, or formaldehyde at the 

control device outlet, and 

R = percent reduction of CO, THC, or formaldehyde 

emissions. 

(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO), total 

hydrocarbons (THC), or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet 

and outlet of the control device to a dry basis and to 15 

percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide (CO2). If 

Ci-Co

Ci x 100 = R (Eq. 1) 
Page 123 of 201

pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15 percent 

oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of oxygen 

concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is needed. 

Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel 

burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, 

Section 5.2, and the following equation: 

Where: 

Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the 

ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero 

percent excess air. 

0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100. 

 Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu). 

Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the gross 

calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm3

/J 

(dscf/106

 Btu) 

(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting 

measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows: 

Where: 

Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent. 

5.9 = 20.9 percent O2 - 15 percent O2, the defined O2

correction value, percent. 

Fo = 

0.209 Fd

Fc (Eq. 2) 

XCO2 = 5.9

Fo (Eq. 3) 
Page 124 of 201

(iii) Calculate the CO, THC, and formaldehyde gas 

concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using CO2 as follows: 

Where: 

%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry basis, percent. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.6625 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a); 

b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b); 

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

d. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, collection, 

operation, and maintenance requirements?

 (a) If you elect to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 

of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS 

to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

If you are meeting a requirement to reduce CO emissions, the 

CEMS must be installed at both the inlet and outlet of the 

control device. If you are meeting a requirement to limit the 

concentration of CO, the CEMS must be installed at the outlet of 

the control device. * * * 

Cadj = Cd

XCO2

%CO2

 (Eq. 4) 
Page 125 of 201

* * * * * 

 (b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this 

subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

 (e) * * * 

 (6) An existing non-emergency, non-black start stationary 

RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions which combusts 

landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the 

gross heat input on an annual basis; 

* * * * * 

 (g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency, non-black 

start CI engine greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not 

equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system, you must 

comply with either paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. Owners and operators must follow the manufacturer’s 

specified maintenance requirements for operating and maintaining 

the open or closed crankcase ventilation systems and replacing 

the crankcase filters, or can request the Administrator to 

approve different maintenance requirements that are as 

protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines 

located at area sources in areas of Alaska that meet either 
Page 126 of 201

§63.6603(b)(1) or §63.6603(b)(2) do not have to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. 

 (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that 

prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted to the 

atmosphere, or 

 (2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control 

system that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering 

the exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates and metals. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.6630 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Adding paragraph (d); and 

d. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

 (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other requirement 

that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

 (d) Non-emergency 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the 

requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or 

more can demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde 
Page 127 of 201

emission limit by testing for THC instead of formaldehyde. The 

testing must be conducted according to the requirements in Table 

4 of this subpart. The average reduction of emissions of THC 

determined from the performance test must be equal to or greater 

than 30 percent. 

(e) The initial compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

three test runs. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 
Page 128 of 201

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

19. Section 63.6640 is amended by: 

a. Amending the section heading; 

b. Revising paragraph (a); 

c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

d. Revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations, operating limitations, and other 

requirements?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation, operating limitation, and other 

requirements in Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b, Table 2c, 

and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according to 

methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. 
Page 129 of 201

* * * * * 

 (c) The annual compliance demonstration required for 

existing non-emergency 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE with a site 

rating of more than 500 HP located at an area source of HAP that 

are not remote stationary RICE and that are operated more than 

24 hours per calendar year must be conducted according to the 

following requirements: 

 (1) The compliance demonstration must consist of at least 

one test run. 

 (2) Each test run must be of at least 15 minute duration, 

except that each test conducted using the method in appendix A 

to this subpart must consist of at least one measurement cycle 

and include at least 2 minutes of test data phase measurement. 

 (3) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO 

concentration or CO percent reduction requirement, you must 

measure CO emissions using one of the CO measurement methods 

specified in Table 4 of this subpart, or using appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(4) If you are demonstrating compliance with the THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure THC emissions 

using Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

 (5) You must measure O2 using one of the O2 measurement 

methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart. Measurements to 
Page 130 of 201

determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the 

measurements for CO or THC concentration. 

 (6) If you are demonstrating compliance with the CO or THC 

percent reduction requirement, you must measure CO or THC 

emissions and O2 emissions simultaneously at the inlet and outlet 

of the control device. 

 (7) If the results of the annual compliance demonstration 

show that the emissions exceed the levels specified in Table 6 

of this subpart, the stationary RICE must be shut down as soon 

as safely possible, and appropriate corrective action must be 

taken (e.g., repairs, catalyst cleaning, catalyst replacement). 

The stationary RICE must be retested within 7 days of being 

restarted and the emissions must meet the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. If the retest shows that the emissions 

continue to exceed the specified levels, the stationary RICE 

must again be shut down as soon as safely possible, and the 

stationary RICE may not operate, except for purposes of startup 

and testing, until the owner/operator demonstrates through 

testing that the emissions do not exceed the levels specified in 

Table 6 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary RICE, you 

must operate the emergency stationary RICE according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. 
Page 131 of 201

In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary 

RICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency 

operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, 

and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, 

as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

is prohibited. If you do not operate the engine according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, 

the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this 

subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency 

engines. An engine that exceeds the calendar year limitations on 

non-emergency operation will be considered a non-emergency 

engine and subject to the requirements for non-emergency engines 

for the remaining life of the engine. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency 

stationary RICE in emergency situations. 

 (2) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any 

combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per 

calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as 

allowed by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as 

part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this 

paragraph (f)(2). 

 (i) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the 
Page 132 of 201

tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the 

manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission authority or 

equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the 

insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or 

operator may petition the Administrator for approval of 

additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness 

testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator 

maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local 

standards require maintenance and testing of emergency RICE 

beyond 100 hours per calendar year. 

 (ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for 

emergency demand response for periods in which the regional 

transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and 

transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency Alert 

Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity 

and Energy Emergencies. 

 (iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for periods 

where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent 

or greater below standard voltage or frequency. 

 (3) Emergency stationary RICE located at major sources of 

HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in nonemergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency 

situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar 
Page 133 of 201

year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response 

provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per 

year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak 

shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income 

for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise 

supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another 

entity. 

 (4) Existing emergency stationary RICE located at area 

sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar 

year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in 

non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours 

per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency 

demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

 (i) Prior to April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for nonemergency situations can be used for peak shaving or nonemergency demand response to generate income for a facility, or 

to otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement 

with another entity if engines is operated as part of a peak 

shaving (load management program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is provided only to the facility 

itself or to support the local distribution system. 

 (ii) On or after April 16, 2017, the 50 hours per year for 

non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-
Page 134 of 201

emergency demand response, or to otherwise supply power as part 

of a financial arrangement with another entity. 

* * * * * 

 20. Section 63.6645 is amended by adding a new paragraph 

(i) to read as follows: 

§63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * * 

 (i) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI RICE 

with a site rating of more than 300 HP located at an area source 

of HAP emissions that is certified to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission standards in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 and subject to an 

enforceable state or local standard requiring engine replacement 

and you intend to meet management practices rather than emission 

limits, as specified in §63.6603(c), you must submit a 

notification by March 3, 2013, stating that you intend to use 

the provision in §63.6603(c) and identifying the state or local 

regulation that the engine is subject to. 

21. Section 63.6675 is amended by: 

 a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Alaska 

Railbelt Grid;

b. Revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE; 

and 

c. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of Remote

stationary RICE to read as follows. 
Page 135 of 201

§63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

 Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six 

regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to 

Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden 

Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; 

Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward 

Electric System. 

* * * * * 

 Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion engine that meets all of the 

criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition. All 

emergency stationary RICE must comply with the requirements 

specified in §63.6640(f) in order to be considered emergency 

stationary RICE. If the engine does not comply with the 

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

to be an emergency stationary RICE under this subpart. 

 (1) The stationary RICE is operated to provide electrical 

power or mechanical work during an emergency situation. Examples 

include stationary RICE used to produce power for critical 

networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a 

facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the 

normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power 
Page 136 of 201

production) is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump 

water in the case of fire or flood, etc. 

 (2) The stationary RICE is operated under limited 

circumstances for situations not included in paragraph (1) of 

this definition, as specified in §63.6640(f). 

 (3) The stationary RICE operates as part of a financial 

arrangement with another entity in situations not included in 

paragraph (1) of this definition only as allowed in 

§63.6640(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) and §63.6640(f)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Remote stationary RICE means stationary RICE meeting any of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Stationary RICE located in an offshore area that is 

beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the 

coast of the United States that is in direct contact with the 

open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of 

inland waters. 

 (2) Stationary RICE located on a pipeline segment that 

meets both of the criteria in paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this 

definition. 

(i) A pipeline segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended 

for human occupancy within 220 yards (200 meters) on either side 

of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile (1.6 kilometers) 

Formatted: Space Before: Auto, After: Auto
Page 137 of 201

length of pipeline, and for which buildings with four or more 

stories above ground are not prevalent within this area. Each 

separate dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling unit building is 

counted as a separate building intended for human occupancy. 

(ii) The pipeline segment does not lie within 100 yards (91 

meters) of either a building or a small, well-defined outside 

area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or 

other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period. The days and weeks need not be consecutive. The building 

or area is considered occupied for a full day if it is occupied 

for any portion of the day. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (2), the term pipeline 

segment means all parts of those physical facilities through 

which gas moves in transportation, including but not limited to 

pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attached to pipe, 

compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, 

delivery stations, holders, and fabricated assemblies. 

Stationary RICE located within 50 yards (46 m) of the pipeline 

segment providing power for equipment on a pipeline segment are 

part of the pipeline segment. Transportation of gas means the 

gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or 

the storage of gas. A building is intended for human occupancy 

Deleted: . 

Comment [A9]: CEQ: To remain consistent with 

DOT regs, this would be a Class 4 area. 
Page 138 of 201

if its primary use is for a purpose involving the presence of 

humans. 

(3) Stationary RICE that are not located on gas pipelines 

and that have 5 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy 

within a 0.25 mile radius around the engine. A building is 

intended for human occupancy if its primary use is for a purpose 

involving the presence of humans.

* * * * * 

 22. Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

Existing, New, and Reconstructed SI 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6603, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must 

comply with the following operating limitations for existing, 

new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a 

major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 

1. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

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 

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 

Comment [A10]: CEQ: for consistency this 

definition should also apply to paragraph (3).(the 

definitions in the previous section seem to apply 

only to paragraph (2). 

Formatted Table
Page 139 of 201

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and using NSCR; 

 

equal to 1250°F.1

2. existing, new and 

reconstructed 4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions by 76 percent or more 

(or by 75 percent or more, if 

applicable) and not using NSCR; 

or 

existing, new and reconstructed 

4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions complying with 

the requirement to limit the 

concentration of formaldehyde 

in the stationary RICE exhaust 

to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 

percent O2 and not using NSCR. 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 23. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for 

New and Reconstructed 2SLB and CI Stationary RICE >500 HP 

Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, New and 

Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a Major 

Source of HAP Emissions, Existing CI Stationary RICE >500 HP, 

and Existing 4SLB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located at an Area 

Source of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6603, 63.6630, and 63.6640, 

you must comply with the following operating limitations for new 
Page 140 of 201

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

a major source of HAP emissions; new and reconstructed 4SLB 

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

emissions; and existing CI stationary RICE >500 HP:

For each... You must meet the following 

operating limitation, except 

during periods of startup... 

1. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and using an 

oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water at 

100 percent load plus or minus 

10 percent from the pressure 

drop across the catalyst that 

was measured during the initial 

performance test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1
Page 141 of 201

2. Existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and 

using an oxidation catalyst 

a. maintain your catalyst so 

that the pressure drop across 

the catalyst does not change by 

more than 2 inches of water 

from the pressure drop across 

the catalyst that was measured 

during the initial performance 

test; and 

b. maintain the temperature of 

your stationary RICE exhaust so 

that the catalyst inlet 

temperature is greater than or 

equal to 450°F and less than or 

equal to 1350°F.1
Page 142 of 201

3. New and reconstructed 2SLB 

and CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to reduce CO emissions and not 

using an oxidation catalyst; 

and 

New and reconstructed 2SLB and 

CI stationary RICE >500 HP 

located at a major source of 

HAP emissions and new and 

reconstructed 4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP located at a major 

source of HAP emissions 

complying with the requirement 

to limit the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the stationary 

RICE exhaust and not using an 

oxidation catalyst 

and 

existing CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP complying with the 

requirement to limit or reduce 

the concentration of CO in the 

stationary RICE exhaust and not 

using an oxidation catalyst 

Comply with any operating 

limitations approved by the 

Administrator. 

1

Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for a different temperature 

range. 

 24. Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at a Major Source 

of HAP Emissions and Existing Spark Ignition Stationary RICE 

≤500 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions 
Page 143 of 201

As stated in §§63.6600, 63.6602, and 63.6640, you must comply 

with the following requirements for existing compression 

ignition stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP 

emissions and existing spark ignition stationary RICE ≤500 HP 

located at a major source of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following requirement, 

except during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Emergency 

stationary CI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

CI RICE.1

 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

Minimize the 

engine’s time spent 

at idle and minimize 

the engine’s startup 

time at startup to a 

period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the 

engine, not to 

exceed 30 minutes, 

after which time the 

non-startup emission 

limitations apply.3

 

2. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE <100 HP. 

 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect air cleaner 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

3. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

100<HP<300 HP. 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 230 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2. 
Page 144 of 201

4. NonEmergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 49 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

5. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP. 

a. Limit concentration of 

CO in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 23 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2; or 

b. Reduce CO emissions by 

70 percent or more. 

6. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE and black 

start stationary 

SI RICE.1

a. Change oil and filter 

every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first;2

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,000 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 500 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

7. NonEmergency, nonblack start 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP 

that are not 

2SLB stationary 

RICE. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 1,440 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 1,440 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3
Page 145 of 201

8. NonEmergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary SI 

RICE <100 HP. 

a. Change oil and filter 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first2

; 

b. Inspect spark plugs 

every 4,320 hours of 

operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as necessary; 

c. Inspect all hoses and 

belts every 4,320 hours 

of operation or annually, 

whichever comes first, 

and replace as 

necessary.3

9. Nonemergency, nonblack start 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 225 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

10. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 47 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

11. Nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

Limit concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE exhaust 

to 10.3 ppmvd or less at 

15 percent O2

12. Nonemergency, nonblack start 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 which 

combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis 

Limit concentration of CO 

in the stationary RICE 

exhaust to 177 ppmvd or 

less at 15 percent O2

1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

work practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c 

of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the 
Page 146 of 201

required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law, the work practice can be 

delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk 

under federal, state, or local law has abated. The work practice 

should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency 

has ended or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or 

local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform 

the work practice on the schedule required and the federal, 

state or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.

2

Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart. 

3 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. 

 25. Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing 

Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP Emissions 

As stated in §§63.6603 and 63.6640, you must comply with the 

following requirements for existing stationary RICE located at 

area sources of HAP emissions: 

For each... You must meet the 

following 

requirement, except 

during periods of 

startup... 

During periods of 

startup you must... 

1. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

<300 HP 

 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

Minimize the engine’s 

time spent at idle and 

minimize the engine’s 

startup time at startup 

to a period needed for 

appropriate and safe 

loading of the engine, 

not to exceed 30 

minutes, after which 

time the non-startup 

emission limitations 

apply. 
Page 147 of 201

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

2. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

300<HP<500 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 49 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more. 

3. Non-Emergency, 

non-black start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP 

a. Limit 

concentration of CO 

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust to 23 

ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2; 

or 

b. Reduce CO 

emissions by 70 

percent or more.

4. Emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

and black start 

stationary CI 

RICE2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect air 

cleaner every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 148 of 201

5. Emergency 

stationary SI 

RICE; black start 

stationary SI 

RICE; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year; 

non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year2

a. Change oil and 

filter every 500 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,000 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 500 hours of 

operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

6. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

2SLB stationary 

RICE 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 4,320 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 4,320 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 
Page 149 of 201

7. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SLB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

8. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SLB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

to reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 150 of 201

9. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE ≤500 HP; nonemergency, nonblack start 4SRB 

remote stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 

10. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP that 

are not remote 

stationary RICE 

and that operate 

more than 24 hours 

per calendar year 

Install NSCR to 

reduce HAP 

emissions from the 

stationary RICE 
Page 151 of 201

11. Non-emergency, 

non-black start 

stationary RICE 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis 

a. Change oil and 

filter every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first;1

 

b. Inspect spark 

plugs every 1,440 

hours of operation 

or annually, 

whichever comes 

first, and replace 

as necessary; and 

c. Inspect all 

hoses and belts 

every 1,440 hours 

of operation or 

annually, whichever 

comes first, and 

replace as 

necessary. 1 Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as 

described in §63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil 

change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart. 

2 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it 

is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the 

management practice requirements on the schedule required in 

Table 2d of this subpart, or if performing the management 

practice on the required schedule would otherwise pose an 

unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the 

management practice can be delayed until the emergency is over 

or the unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law has 

abated. The management practice should be performed as soon as 

practicable after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable 

risk under federal, state, or local law has abated. Sources must 

report any failure to perform the management practice on the 

schedule required and the federal, state or local law under 

which the risk was deemed unacceptable. 

 26. 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: 
Page 152 of 201

For each... Complying with the 

requirement to... 

You must...

1. New or 

reconstructed 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources; new 

or reconstructed 

4SLB stationary 

RICE ≥250 HP 

located at major 

sources; and new 

or reconstructed 

CI stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources. 

Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

2. 4SRB stationary 

RICE ≥5,000 HP 

located at major 

sources. 

Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

3. Stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

major sources and 

new or 

reconstructed 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at major sources. 

Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in 

the stationary 

RICE exhaust 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

semiannually1

. 

4. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

3 years, whichever 

comes first. 

5. Existing nonemergency, nonblack start CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP that are 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

Limit or reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using a CEMS 

Conduct subsequent 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hrs or 

5 years, whichever 

comes first. 

1 After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 
Page 153 of 201

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

 27. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

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) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

(incorpo

rated by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14). 

(a) 

Measurements 

to determine 

O2 must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for CO 

concentration. 

ii. 

Measure 

the CO at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) ASTM 

D6522-00 

(2005)a,b

(incorpo

ra-ted 

by 

referenc

e, see 

§63.14) 

(a) The CO 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 
Page 154 of 201

or 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A. 

2. 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE 

a. reduce 

formaldehyd

e 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 

concentratio

n must be 

made at the 

same time as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 
Page 155 of 201

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

content 

at the 

inlet and 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device; 

and 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or THC 

concentratio

n. 

iv. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the 

formaldeh

yde 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

formaldehyde at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), 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. 
Page 156 of 201

 v. If 

demonstra

ting 

complianc

e with 

the THC 

percent 

reduction 

requireme

nt, 

measure 

THC at 

the inlet 

and the 

outlet of 

the 

control 

device 

(1) 

Method 

25A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

(a) THC 

concentration must be 

at 15 

percent O2, 

dry basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

3. 

Stationary 

RICE 

a. limit 

the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the 

stationary 

RICE 

exhaust 

i. Select 

the 

sampling 

port 

location 

and the 

number of 

traverse 

points; 

and 

(1) 

Method 1 

or 1A of 

40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix 

A 

§63.7(d)

(1)(i) 

(a) if using 

a control 

device, the 

sampling 

site must be 

located at 

the outlet 

of the 

control 

device. 

ii. 

Determine 

the O2

concentra

tion of 

the 

stationar

y RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

(1) 

Method 3 

or 3A or 

3B of 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

Method 

D6522-

00(2005)

. 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 

O2 concentration must be 

made at the 

same time 

and location 

as the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentration. 

iii. 

Measure 

moisture 

(1) 

Method 4 

of 40 

(a) 

measurements 

to determine 
Page 157 of 201

content 

of the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust 

at the 

sampling 

port 

location; 

and 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix 

A, or 

Test 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM D 

6348-03 

moisture 

content must 

be made at 

the same 

time and 

location as 

the 

measurements 

for 

formaldehyde 

or CO 

concentratio

n. 

iv. 

Measure 

formaldehyde at 

the 

exhaust 

of the 

stationary RICE; 

or 

(1) 

Method 

320 or 

323 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A; or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03c

, 

provided 

in ASTM 

D6348-03 

Annex A5 

(Analyte 

Spiking 

Techniqu

e), the 

percent 

R must 

be 

greater 

than or 

equal to 

70 and 

less 

than or 

equal to 

130. 

(a) 

Formaldehyde 

concentratio

n 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 

(1) 

Method 

10 of 40 

CFR part 

(a) CO 

concentratio

n must be at 

15 percent 
Page 158 of 201

of the 

stationary RICE. 

60, 

appendix 

A, ASTM 

Method 

D6522-00 

(2005)a

, 

Method 

320 of 

40 CFR 

part 63, 

appendix 

A, or 

ASTM 

D6348-

03. 

O2, dry 

basis. 

Results of 

this test 

consist of 

the average 

of the three 

1-hour or 

longer runs. 

a

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) from at least one 

of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-

2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb 

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to 

test both CI and SI stationary RICE. 

b

You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or 

ASTM D6348-03. 

c

You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the 

following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or 

University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48106. 

 28. 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 . . . 
Page 159 of 201

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and using 

oxidation catalyst, 

and using a CPMS 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 160 of 201

2. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, using oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test.

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test achieves the 

required CO percent 

reduction; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 
Page 161 of 201

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

4. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and not using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. The average CO 

concentration 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is less than 

or equal to the CO 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 
Page 162 of 201

5. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, and 

using a CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

both the inlet and 

outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

reduction of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 equals or 

exceeds the 

required percent 

reduction. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance 

is based on the 

average percent 

reduction achieved 

during the 4-hour 

period. 
Page 163 of 201

6. Non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

CO, and using a 

CEMS 

i. You have 

installed a CEMS to 

continuously 

monitor CO and 

either O2 or CO2 at 

the outlet of the 

oxidation catalyst 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(a); and 

ii. You have 

conducted a 

performance 

evaluation of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B; and 

iii. The average 

concentration of CO 

calculated using 

§63.6620 is less 

than or equal to 

the CO emission 

limitation. The 

initial test 

comprises the first 

4-hour period after 

successful 

validation of the 

CEMS. Compliance is 

based on the 

average 

concentration 

measured during the 

4-hour period. 

7. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 
Page 164 of 201

percent reduction, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than 30 

percent; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

8. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of 

formaldehyde 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction; 

and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 
Page 165 of 201

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

9. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. The average 

formaldehyde 

concentration, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

emission 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

catalyst pressure 

drop and catalyst 

inlet temperature 

during the initial 

performance test. 

10. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

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 
Page 166 of 201

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

limitation; and 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor operating 

parameters approved 

by the 

Administrator (if 

any) according to 

the requirements in 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. You have 

recorded the 

approved operating 

parameters (if any) 

during the initial 

performance test. 

11. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions. 

i. The average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable 

determined from the 

initial performance 

test is equal to or 

greater than the 

required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

applicable, percent 

reduction. 

12. Existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

100≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP, and 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

300<HP≤500 located 

at an area source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde or CO

in the stationary 

RICE exhaust. 

i. The average 

formaldehyde or CO 

concentration, as 

applicable, 

corrected to 15 

percent O2, dry 

basis, from the 

three test runs is 

less than or equal 

to the formaldehyde 

or CO emission 

limitation, as 

applicable. 

13. Existing nonemergency 4SLB a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. You have 

conducted an 
Page 167 of 201

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

 initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350°F. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. You have 

conducted an 

initial compliance 

demonstration as 

specified in 

§63.6630(e) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more 

ii. You have 

installed a CPMS to 

continuously 

monitor catalyst 
Page 168 of 201

inlet temperature 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6625(b), or you 

have installed 

equipment to 

automatically shut 

down the engine if 

the catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250°F. 

 29. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations, Work Practices, and 

Management Practices 

As stated in §63.6640, you must continuously comply with the 

emissions and operating limitations and work or management 

practices as required by the following: 

For each . . . Complying with the 

requirement to . . 

. 

You must 

demonstrate 

continuous 

compliance by 

. . . 

1. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

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 achieveda

; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 169 of 201

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

2. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst, and using 

a CPMS 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for CO to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO 

percent reduction 

is achieveda

; 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 
Page 170 of 201

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

3. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

≥250 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, and existing 

non-emergency 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

a CEMS 

i. Collecting the 

monitoring data 

according to 

§63.6625(a), 

reducing the 

measurements to 1-

hour averages, 

calculating the 

percent reduction 

or concentration of 

CO emissions 

according to 

§63.6620; and 

ii. Demonstrating 

that the catalyst 

achieves the 

required percent 

reduction of CO 

emissions over the 

4-hour averaging 

period, or that the 

emission remain at 

or below the CO 

concentration 

limit; and 

iii. Conducting an 

annual RATA of your 

CEMS using PS 3 and 

4A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, as 

well as daily and 

periodic data 

quality checks in 

accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix F, 
Page 171 of 201

procedure 1. 

4. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and using 

NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

iv. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

5. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a major 

source of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions and not 

using NSCR 

i. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

ii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iii. Maintaining 

the 4-hour rolling 

averages within the 
Page 172 of 201

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

6. Non-emergency 

4SRB stationary 

RICE with a brake 

HP ≥5,000 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Reduce 

formaldehyde 

emissions 

Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

the required 

formaldehyde 

percent reduction 

is achieved, or to 

demonstrate that 

the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC 

determined from the 

performance test is 

equal to or greater 

than 30 percent.a

7. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and using 

oxidation catalyst 

or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 173 of 201

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

8. New or 

reconstructed nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP and new or 

reconstructed nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

250≤HP≤500 located 

at a major source 

of HAP. 

a. Limit the 

concentration of 

formaldehyde in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst or NSCR 

i. Conducting 

semiannual 

performance tests 

for formaldehyde to 

demonstrate that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the formaldehyde 

concentration 

limita

; 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 
Page 174 of 201

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

9. Existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 

stationary RICE 

<100 HP located at 

a major source of 

HAP, existing 

emergency and 

black start 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary CI RICE 

≤300 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 2SLB 

stationary RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP, 

existing nonemergency 

stationary SI RICE 

located at an area 

source of HAP 

which combusts 

landfill or 

digester gas 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more of 

the gross heat 

input on an annual 

basis, existing 

non-emergency 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

a. Work or 

Management 

practices. 

i. Operating and 

maintaining the 

stationary RICE 

according to the 

manufacturer’s 

emission-related 

operation and 

maintenance 

instructions; 

or 

ii. Develop and 

follow your own 

maintenance plan 

which must provide 

to the extent 

practicable for the 

maintenance and 

operation of the 

engine in a manner 

consistent with 

good air pollution 

control practice 

for minimizing 

emissions. 
Page 175 of 201

stationary RICE 

≤500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP, existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

operate 24 hours 

or less per 

calendar year, and 

existing nonemergency 4SLB and 

4SRB stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an area 

source of HAP that 

are remote 

stationary RICE. 

10. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 176 of 201

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

11. Existing 

stationary CI RICE 

>500 HP that are 

not limited use 

stationary RICE. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions, or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 3 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or that 

your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 177 of 201

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

12. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and using 

an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b); and 
Page 178 of 201

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; and 

v. Measuring the 

pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

once per month and 

demonstrating that 

the pressure drop 

across the catalyst 

is within the 

operating 

limitation 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

13. Existing 

limited use CI 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP. 

a. Reduce CO 

emissions or limit 

the concentration 

of CO in the 

stationary RICE 

exhaust, and not 

using an oxidation 

catalyst 

i. Conducting 

performance tests 

every 8,760 hours 

or 5 years, 

whichever comes 

first, for CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, to 

demonstrate that 

the required CO or 

formaldehyde, as 

appropriate, 

percent reduction 

is achieved or 

that your emissions 

remain at or below 

the CO or 

formaldehyde 

concentration 

limit; and 
Page 179 of 201

ii. Collecting the 

approved operating 

parameter (if any) 

data according to 

§63.6625(b); and 

iii. Reducing these 

data to 4-hour 

rolling averages; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 

4-hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

operating 

parameters 

established during 

the performance 

test. 

14. Existing nonemergency 4SLB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install an 

oxidation catalyst 

i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

93 percent or more, 

or the average CO 

concentration is 

less than or equal 

to 47 ppmvd at 15 

percent O2; and 

either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 
Page 180 of 201

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1350° F. 

15. Existing nonemergency 4SRB 

stationary RICE 

>500 HP located at 

an area source of 

HAP that are not 

remote stationary 

RICE and that are 

operated more than 

24 hours per 

calendar year 

a. Install NSCR i. Conducting 

annual compliance 

demonstrations as 

specified in 

§63.6640(c) to show 

that the average 

reduction of 

emissions of CO is 

75 percent or more, 

or the average 

reduction of 

emissions of THC is 

30 percent or more;

and either 

ii. Collecting the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature data 

according to 

§63.6625(b), 

reducing these data 

to 4-hour rolling 

averages; and 

maintaining the 4-

hour rolling 

averages within the 

operating 

limitations for the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature; or 

iii. Immediately 

shutting down the 

engine if the 

catalyst inlet 

temperature exceeds 

1250° F. 
Page 181 of 201

a

After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance 

tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual 

performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in 

compliance with the CO or formaldehyde emission limitation, or 

you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must 

resume semiannual performance tests. 

30. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports 

As stated in §63.6650, you must comply with the following 

requirements for reports: 

For each . . 

. 

You must 

submit a . . 

. 

The report must 

contain . . . 

You must submit 

the report . . . 

1. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary 

RICE 

100≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency 

4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

Compliance 

report 

a. If there are 

no deviations 

from any 

emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations that 

apply to you, a 

statement that 

there were no 

deviations from 

the emission 

limitations or 

operating 

limitations 

during the 

reporting 

period. If there 

were no periods 

during which the 

CMS, including 

CEMS and CPMS, 

was out-ofcontrol, as 

specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), a 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) for engines 

that are not 

limited use 

stationary RICE 

subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations; and 

ii. Annually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(6)-

(9) for engines 

that are limited 

use stationary 

RICE subject to 

numerical 

emission 

limitations. 
Page 182 of 201

major source 

of HAP; 

existing nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 

stationary CI 

RICE >300 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP; new 

or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP; and 

new or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

4SLB 

stationary 

RICE 

250≤HP≤500 

located at a 

major source 

of HAP 

statement that 

there were not 

periods during 

which the CMS 

was out-ofcontrol during 

the reporting 

period; or 

b. If you had a 

deviation from 

any emission 

limitation or 

operating 

limitation 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(d). If 

there were 

periods during 

which the CMS, 

including CEMS 

and CPMS, was 

out-of-control, 

as specified in 

§63.8(c)(7), the 

information in 

§63.6650(e); or 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

c. If you had a 

malfunction 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

information in 

§63.6650(c)(4). 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b). 

2. New or 

reconstructed 

non-emergency 

stationary 

RICE that 

combusts 

landfill gas 

or digester 

gas 

equivalent to 

Report a. The fuel flow 

rate of each 

fuel and the 

heating values 

that were used 

in your 

calculations, 

and you must 

demonstrate that 

the percentage 

i. Annually, 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650. 
Page 183 of 201

10 percent or 

more of the 

gross heat 

input on an 

annual basis 

of heat input 

provided by 

landfill gas or 

digester gas, is 

equivalent to 10 

percent or more 

of the gross 

heat input on an 

annual basis; 

and 

b. The operating 

limits provided 

in your 

federally 

enforceable 

permit, and any 

deviations from 

these limits; 

and 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

c. Any problems 

or errors 

suspected with 

the meters. 

i. See item 

2.a.i. 

3. Existing 

nonemergency, 

non-black 

start 4SLB 

and 4SRB 

stationary 

RICE >500 HP 

located at an 

area source 

of HAP that 

are not 

remote 

stationary 

RICE and that 

operate more 

than 24 hours 

per calendar 

year 

Compliance 

report 

a. The results 

of the annual 

compliance 

demonstration, 

if conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period. 

i. Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.6650(b)(1)-

(5) 

 31. Appendix A to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is added to read 

as follows: 
Page 184 of 201

Appendix A 

Protocol for Using an Electrochemical Analyzer to Determine 

Oxygen and Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Certain Engines 

1.0 Scope and Application. What is this Protocol? 

This protocol is a procedure for using portable electrochemical 

(EC) cells for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) 

concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled emissions from 

existing stationary 4-stroke lean burn and 4-stroke rich burn 

reciprocating internal combustion engines as specified in the 

applicable rule. 

1.1 Analytes. What does this protocol determine? 

This protocol measures the engine exhaust gas concentrations of 

carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2). 

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity

Carbon monoxide (CO) 630-08-0 Minimum detectable 

limit should be 2 

percent of the 

nominal range or 1 

ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

Oxygen (O2) 7782-44-7 

1.2 Applicability. When is this protocol acceptable? 

This protocol is applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Because of inherent cross sensitivities of EC cells, you must 

not apply this protocol to other emissions sources without 

specific instruction to that effect. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. How good must my collected data be? 
Page 185 of 201

Refer to Section 13 to verify and document acceptable analyzer 

performance. 

1.4 Range. What is the targeted analytical range for this 

protocol? 

The measurement system and EC cell design(s) conforming to this 

protocol will determine the analytical range for each gas 

component. The nominal ranges are defined by choosing up-scale 

calibration gas concentrations near the maximum anticipated flue 

gas concentrations for CO and O2, or no more than twice the 

permitted CO level. 

1.5 Sensitivity. What minimum detectable limit will this 

protocol yield for a particular gas component? 

The minimum detectable limit depends on the nominal range and 

resolution of the specific EC cell used, and the signal to noise 

ratio of the measurement system. The minimum detectable limit 

should be 2 percent of the nominal range or 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. 

2.0 Summary of Protocol 

In this protocol, a gas sample is extracted from an engine 

exhaust system and then conveyed to a portable EC analyzer for 

measurement of CO and O2 gas concentrations. This method provides 

measurement system performance specifications and sampling 

protocols to ensure reliable data. You may use additions to, or 

modifications of vendor supplied measurement systems (e.g., 
Page 186 of 201

heated or unheated sample lines, thermocouples, flow meters, 

selective gas scrubbers, etc.) to meet the design specifications 

of this protocol. Do not make changes to the measurement system 

from the as-verified configuration (Section 3.12). 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Measurement System. The total equipment required for the 

measurement of CO and O2 concentrations. The measurement system 

consists of the following major subsystems: 

3.1.1 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or digital 

recorder for logging measurement data from the analyzer output. 

You may record measurement data from the digital data display 

manually or electronically.

3.1.2 Electrochemical (EC) Cell. A device, similar to a fuel 

cell, used to sense the presence of a specific analyte and 

generate an electrical current output proportional to the 

analyte concentration.

3.1.3 Interference Gas Scrubber. A device used to remove or 

neutralize chemical compounds that may interfere with the 

selective operation of an EC cell.

3.1.4 Moisture Removal System. Any device used to reduce the 

concentration of moisture in the sample stream so as to protect 

the EC cells from the damaging effects of condensation and to 

minimize errors in measurements caused by the scrubbing of 

soluble gases.
Page 187 of 201

3.1.5 Sample Interface. The portion of the system used for one 

or more of the following: sample acquisition; sample transport; 

sample conditioning or protection of the EC cell from any 

degrading effects of the engine exhaust effluent; removal of 

particulate matter and condensed moisture. 

3.2 Nominal Range. The range of analyte concentrations over 

which each EC cell is operated (normally 25 percent to 150 

percent of up-scale calibration gas value). Several nominal 

ranges can be used for any given cell so long as the calibration 

and repeatability checks for that range remain within 

specifications. 

3.3 Calibration Gas. A vendor certified concentration of a 

specific analyte in an appropriate balance gas. 

3.4 Zero Calibration Error. The analyte concentration output 

exhibited by the EC cell in response to zero-level calibration 

gas. 

3.5 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference 

between the analyte concentration exhibited by the EC cell and 

the certified concentration of the up-scale calibration gas. 

3.6 Interference Check. A procedure for quantifying analytical 

interference from components in the engine exhaust gas other 

than the targeted analytes. 

3.7 Repeatability Check. A protocol for demonstrating that an EC 

cell operated over a given nominal analyte concentration range 
Page 188 of 201

provides a stable and consistent response and is not 

significantly affected by repeated exposure to that gas. 

3.8 Sample Flow Rate. The flow rate of the gas sample as it 

passes through the EC cell. In some situations, EC cells can 

experience drift with changes in flow rate. The flow rate must 

be monitored and documented during all phases of a sampling run. 

3.9 Sampling Run. A timed three-phase event whereby an EC cell’s 

response rises and plateaus in a sample conditioning phase, 

remains relatively constant during a measurement data phase, 

then declines during a refresh phase. The sample conditioning 

phase exposes the EC cell to the gas sample for a length of time 

sufficient to reach a constant response. The measurement data 

phase is the time interval during which gas sample measurements 

can be made that meet the acceptance criteria of this protocol. 

The refresh phase then purges the EC cells with CO-free air. The 

refresh phase replenishes requisite O2 and moisture in the 

electrolyte reserve and provides a mechanism to de-gas or desorb 

any interference gas scrubbers or filters so as to enable a 

stable CO EC cell response. There are four primary types of 

sampling runs: pre- sampling calibrations; stack gas sampling; 

post-sampling calibration checks; and measurement system 

repeatability checks. Stack gas sampling runs can be chained 

together for extended evaluations, providing all other 

procedural specifications are met. 
Page 189 of 201

3.10 Sampling Day. A time not to exceed twelve hours from the 

time of the pre-sampling calibration to the post-sampling 

calibration check. During this time, stack gas sampling runs can 

be repeated without repeated recalibrations, providing all other 

sampling specifications have been met. 

3.11 Pre-Sampling Calibration/Post-Sampling Calibration Check.

The protocols executed at the beginning and end of each sampling 

day to bracket measurement readings with controlled performance 

checks. 

3.12 Performance-Established Configuration. The EC cell and 

sampling system configuration that existed at the time that it 

initially met the performance requirements of this protocol. 

4.0 Interferences.

When present in sufficient concentrations, NO and NO2 are two gas 

species that have been reported to interfere with CO 

concentration measurements. In the likelihood of this 

occurrence, it is the protocol user’s responsibility to employ 

and properly maintain an appropriate CO EC cell filter or 

scrubber for removal of these gases, as described in Section 

6.2.12.

5.0 Safety. [Reserved]

6.0 Equipment and Supplies.

6.1 What equipment do I need for the measurement system? 
Page 190 of 201

The system must maintain the gas sample at conditions that will 

prevent moisture condensation in the sample transport lines, 

both before and as the sample gas contacts the EC cells. The 

essential components of the measurement system are described 

below. 

6.2 Measurement System Components. 

6.2.1 Sample Probe. A single extraction-point probe constructed 

of glass, stainless steel or other non-reactive material, and of 

length sufficient to reach any designated sampling point. The 

sample probe must be designed to prevent plugging due to 

condensation or particulate matter. 

6.2.2 Sample Line. Non-reactive tubing to transport the effluent 

from the sample probe to the EC cell. 

6.2.3 Calibration Assembly (optional). A three-way valve 

assembly or equivalent to introduce calibration gases at ambient 

pressure at the exit end of the sample probe during calibration 

checks. The assembly must be designed such that only stack gas 

or calibration gas flows in the sample line and all gases flow 

through any gas path filters. 

6.2.4 Particulate Filter (optional). Filters before the inlet of 

the EC cell to prevent accumulation of particulate material in 

the measurement system and extend the useful life of the 

components. All filters must be fabricated of materials that are 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 
Page 191 of 201

6.2.5 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump to provide undiluted sample 

gas to the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the 

response time of the measurement system. If located upstream of 

the EC cells, the pump must be constructed of a material that is 

non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.8 Sample Flow Rate Monitoring. An adjustable rotameter or 

equivalent device used to adjust and maintain the sample flow 

rate through the analyzer as prescribed. 

6.2.9 Sample Gas Manifold (optional). A manifold to divert a 

portion of the sample gas stream to the analyzer and the 

remainder to a by-pass discharge vent. The sample gas manifold 

may also include provisions for introducing calibration gases 

directly to the analyzer. The manifold must be constructed of a 

material that is non-reactive to the gas mixtures being sampled. 

6.2.10 EC cell. A device containing one or more EC cells to 

determine the CO and O2 concentrations in the sample gas stream. 

The EC cell(s) must meet the applicable performance 

specifications of Section 13 of this protocol. 

6.2.11 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer or 

digital recorder to make a record of analyzer output data. The 

data recorder resolution (i.e., readability) must be no greater 

than 1 ppm for CO; 0.1 percent for O2; and one degree (either o

C 

or o

F) for temperature. Alternatively, you may use a digital or 
Page 192 of 201

analog meter having the same resolution to observe and manually 

record the analyzer responses. 

6.2.12 Interference Gas Filter or Scrubber. A device to remove 

interfering compounds upstream of the CO EC cell. Specific 

interference gas filters or scrubbers used in the performanceestablished configuration of the analyzer must continue to be 

used. Such a filter or scrubber must have a means to determine 

when the removal agent is exhausted. Periodically replace or 

replenish it in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards. What calibration gases are needed?

7.1 Calibration Gases. CO calibration gases for the EC cell must 

be CO in nitrogen or CO in a mixture of nitrogen and O2. Use CO 

calibration gases with labeled concentration values certified by 

the manufacturer to be within ± 5 percent of the label value. 

Dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) is acceptable for calibration 

of the O2 cell. If needed, any lower percentage O2 calibration 

gas must be a mixture of O2 in nitrogen. 

7.1.1 Up-Scale CO Calibration Gas Concentration. 

Choose one or more up-scale gas concentrations such that the 

average of the stack gas measurements for each stack gas 

sampling run are between 25 and 150 percent of those 

concentrations. Alternatively, choose an up-scale gas that does 

not exceed twice the concentration of the applicable outlet 
Page 193 of 201

standard. If a measured gas value exceeds 150 percent of the upscale CO calibration gas value at any time during the stack gas 

sampling run, the run must be discarded and repeated. 

7.1.2 Up-Scale O2 Calibration Gas Concentration.

Select an O2 gas concentration such that the difference between 

the gas concentration and the average stack gas measurement or 

reading for each sample run is less than 15 percent O2. When the 

average exhaust gas O2 readings are above 6 percent, you may use 

dry ambient air (20.9 percent O2) for the up-scale O2 calibration 

gas.

7.1.3 Zero Gas. Use an inert gas that contains less than 0.25 

percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration. You 

may use dry air that is free from ambient CO and other 

combustion gas products (e.g., CO2).

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis

8.1 Selection of Sampling Sites. 

8.1.1 Control Device Inlet. Select a sampling site sufficiently 

downstream of the engine so that the combustion gases should be 

well mixed. Use a single sampling extraction point near the 

center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent centroidal 

area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.1.2 Exhaust Gas Outlet. Select a sampling site located at 

least two stack diameters downstream of any disturbance (e.g., 

turbocharger exhaust, crossover junction or recirculation take-
Page 194 of 201

off) and at least one-half stack diameter upstream of the gas 

discharge to the atmosphere. Use a single sampling extraction 

point near the center of the duct (e.g., within the 10 percent 

centroidal area), unless instructed otherwise.

8.2 Stack Gas Collection and Analysis. Prior to the first stack 

gas sampling run, conduct that the pre-sampling calibration in 

accordance with Section 10.1. Use Figure 1 to record all data. 

Zero the analyzer with zero gas. Confirm and record that the 

scrubber media color is correct and not exhausted. Then position 

the probe at the sampling point and begin the sampling run at 

the same flow rate used during the up-scale calibration. Record 

the start time. Record all EC cell output responses and the flow 

rate during the “sample conditioning phase” once per minute 

until constant readings are obtained. Then begin the 

“measurement data phase” and record readings every 15 seconds 

for at least two minutes (or eight readings), or as otherwise 

required to achieve two continuous minutes of data that meet the 

specification given in Section 13.1. Finally, perform the 

“refresh phase” by introducing dry air, free from CO and other 

combustion gases, until several minute-to-minute readings of 

consistent value have been obtained. For each run use the 

“measurement data phase” readings to calculate the average stack 

gas CO and O2 concentrations.
Page 195 of 201

8.3 EC Cell Rate. Maintain the EC cell sample flow rate so that 

it does not vary by more than ± 10 percent throughout the presampling calibration, stack gas sampling and post-sampling 

calibration check. Alternatively, the EC cell sample flow rate 

can be maintained within a tolerance range that does not affect 

the gas concentration readings by more than ± 3 percent, as 

instructed by the EC cell manufacturer. 

9.0 Quality Control (Reserved)

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Pre-Sampling Calibration. Conduct the following protocol 

once for each nominal range to be used on each EC cell before 

performing a stack gas sampling run on each field sampling day. 

Repeat the calibration if you replace an EC cell before 

completing all of the sampling runs. There is no prescribed 

order for calibration of the EC cells; however, each cell must 

complete the measurement data phase during calibration. Assemble 

the measurement system by following the manufacturer's 

recommended protocols including for preparing and 

preconditioning the EC cell. Assure the measurement system has 

no leaks and verify the gas scrubbing agent is not depleted. Use 

Figure 1 to record all data. 

10.1.1 Zero Calibration. For both the O2 and CO cells, introduce 

zero gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the calibration 

assembly) and record the concentration reading every minute 
Page 196 of 201

until readings are constant for at least two consecutive 

minutes. Include the time and sample flow rate. Repeat the steps 

in this section at least once to verify the zero calibration for 

each component gas. 

10.1.2 Zero Calibration Tolerance. For each zero gas 

introduction, the zero level output must be less than or equal 

to ± 3 percent of the up-scale gas value or ± 1 ppm, whichever 

is less restrictive, for the CO channel and less than or equal 

to ± 0.3 percent O2 for the O2 channel. 

10.1.3 Up-Scale Calibration. Individually introduce each 

calibration gas to the measurement system (e.g., at the 

calibration assembly) and record the start time. Record all EC 

cell output responses and the flow rate during this “sample 

conditioning phase” once per minute until readings are constant 

for at least two minutes. Then begin the “measurement data 

phase” and record readings every 15 seconds for a total of two 

minutes, or as otherwise required. Finally, perform the “refresh 

phase” by introducing dry air, free from CO and other combustion 

gases, until readings are constant for at least two consecutive 

minutes. Then repeat the steps in this section at least once to 

verify the calibration for each component gas. Introduce all 

gases to flow through the entire sample handling system (i.e., 

at the exit end of the sampling probe or the calibration 

assembly). 
Page 197 of 201

10.1.4 Up-Scale Calibration Error. The mean of the difference of 

the “measurement data phase” readings from the reported standard 

gas value must be less than or equal to ± 5 percent or ± 1 ppm 

for CO or ± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, 

respectively. The maximum allowable deviation from the mean 

measured value of any single "measurement data phase" reading 

must be less than or equal to ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm for CO or 

± 0.5 percent O2, whichever is less restrictive, respectively. 

10.2 Post-Sampling Calibration Check. Conduct a stack gas postsampling calibration check after the stack gas sampling run or 

set of runs and within 12 hours of the initial calibration. 

Conduct up-scale and zero calibration checks using the protocol 

in Section 10.1. Make no changes to the sampling system or EC 

cell calibration until all post-sampling calibration checks have 

been recorded. If either the zero or up-scale calibration error 

exceeds the respective specification in Sections 10.1.2 and 

10.1.4 then all measurement data collected since the previous 

successful calibrations are invalid and re-calibration and resampling are required. If the sampling system is disassembled or 

the EC cell calibration is adjusted, repeat the calibration 

check before conducting the next analyzer sampling run. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

The analytical procedure is fully discussed in Section 8.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis
Page 198 of 201

Determine the CO and O2 concentrations for each stack gas 

sampling run by calculating the mean gas concentrations of the 

data recorded during the “measurement data phase”. 

13.0 Protocol Performance

Use the following protocols to verify consistent analyzer 

performance during each field sampling day. 

13.1 Measurement Data Phase Performance Check. Calculate the 

mean of the readings from the “measurement data phase”. The 

maximum allowable deviation from the mean for each of the 

individual readings is ± 2 percent, or ± 1 ppm, whichever is 

less restrictive. Record the mean value and maximum deviation 

for each gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 10.1.4. The 

EC cell flow rate must conform to the specification in Section 

8.3. 

Example: A measurement data phase is invalid if the maximum 

deviation of any single reading comprising that mean is greater 

than ± 2 percent or ± 1 ppm (the default criteria). For example, 

if the mean = 30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and above 

31 ppm are disallowed).

13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial use of the EC cell 

and interference gas scrubber in the field, and semi-annually 

thereafter, challenge the interference gas scrubber with NO and 

NO2 gas standards that are generally recognized as representative 

of diesel-fueled engine NO and NO2 emission values. Record the 
Page 199 of 201

responses displayed by the CO EC cell and other pertinent data 

on Figure 1 or a similar form. 

13.2.1 Interference Response. The combined NO and NO2

interference response should be less than or equal to ± 5 

percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration. 

13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the following check once for 

each nominal range that is to be used on the CO EC cell within 

five days prior to each field sampling program. If a field 

sampling program lasts longer than five days, repeat this check 

every five days. Immediately repeat the check if the EC cell is 

replaced or if the EC cell is exposed to gas concentrations 

greater than 150 percent of the highest up-scale gas 

concentration.

13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. Perform a complete EC cell 

sampling run (all three phases) by introducing the CO 

calibration gas to the measurement system and record the 

response. Follow Section 10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all 

data. Repeat the run three times for a total of four complete 

runs. During the four repeatability check runs, do not adjust 

the system except where necessary to achieve the correct 

calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer.

13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. Determine the highest 

and lowest average “measurement data phase” CO concentrations 

from the four repeatability check runs and record the results on 
Page 200 of 201

Figure 1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the difference 

between the maximum and minimum average values recorded must not 

vary more than ± 3 percent or ± 1 ppm of the up-scale gas value, 

whichever is less restrictive. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved)

15.0 Waste Management (Reserved) 

16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved) 

17.0 References

(1) “Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer 

Test Protocol”, Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission 

Monitoring, Inc., July 1997. 

(2) “Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and 

Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and 

Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers”, EMC Conditional Test 

Protocol 30 (CTM-30), Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI96/0008, Revision 7, October 13, 1997. 

(3) "ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic Monitoring”, EMC 

Conditional Test Protocol 34 (CTM-034), The Institute of Clean 

Air Companies, September 8, 1999. 

(4) “Code of Federal Regulations”, Protection of Environment, 

40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1-4; 10. 

Table 1: Appendix A - Sampling Run Data. 

Facility________________ Engine I.D.______________ Date_________ 
Page 201 of 201

 Run Type: (__) (__) (__) (__) 

 (X) Pre-Sample Stack Gas Post-Sample Repeatability 

 Calibration Sample Cal. Check Check 

 

Run # 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Time Scrub. 

OK 

FlowRate 

Gas O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO O2 CO 

 

Sample 

Cond. 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

Measurement 

Data 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“ 

 

 Mean 

 

Refresh 

Phase 

 

“ 

“ 

“ 

“