National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, 9648-9690 [2010-3508]
Download as PDF
9648
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–9115–7]
RIN 2060–AP36
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for existing stationary
compression ignition reciprocating
internal combustion engines that either
are located at area sources of hazardous
air pollutant emissions or that have a
site rating of less than or equal to 500
brake horsepower and are located at
major sources of hazardous air pollutant
emissions. In addition, EPA is
promulgating national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
for existing non-emergency stationary
compression ignition engines greater
than 500 brake horsepower that are
located at major sources of hazardous
air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is
revising the provisions related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction for
the engines that were regulated
previously by these national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708. EPA
also relies on materials in Docket ID
Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0059, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2005–0029, and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0030 and incorporates those
dockets into the record for the final rule.
All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Headquarters Library,
Room Number 3334, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room hours of operation will
be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST), Monday through
Friday. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group,
Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243–01), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number (919)
541–2469; facsimile number (919) 541–
5450; e-mail address
king.melanie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information Document. On
March 5, 2009 (71 FR 9698), EPA
proposed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
for existing stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) that
either are located at area sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions or that have a site rating of
less than or equal to 500 brake
horsepower (HP) and are located at
major sources of HAP emissions. In
addition, EPA proposed national
emission standards for HAP for existing
stationary compression ignition (CI)
engines greater than 500 brake HP that
are located at major sources. A summary
of the public comments on the proposal
and EPA’s responses to the comments,
as well as the Regulatory Impact
Analysis Report, are available in Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708.
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
C. Judicial Review
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final
decision for spark ignition engines?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
NAICS 1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Category
Any industry using a stationary internal combustion engine as
defined in this final rule.
2211
622110
48621
211111
211112
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
A. What is the source category regulated by
the final rule?
B. What are the pollutants regulated by the
final rule?
C. What are the final requirements?
D. What are the operating limitations?
E. What are the requirements for
demonstrating compliance?
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since
Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Standards
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Other
V. Summary of Responses to Major
Comments
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Requirements
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Emergency Engines
F. Emissions Data
G. Final Rule Impacts
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the benefits?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air health,
environmental and energy impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action include:
Examples of regulated entities
Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution.
Medical and surgical hospitals.
Natural gas transmission.
Crude petroleum and natural gas production.
Natural gas liquids producers.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NAICS 1
Category
92811
1 North
Examples of regulated entities
National security.
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine
whether your engine is regulated by this
action, you should examine the
applicability criteria of this final rule. If
you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of this final
action will be posted on the TTN’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in
various areas of air pollution control.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9649
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this
final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by May 3, 2010. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established by
this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final
decision for spark ignition engines?
In the notice of proposed rulemaking
for this rule, published on March 5,
2009, EPA proposed the NESHAP for all
existing stationary RICE located at area
sources of HAP emissions and existing
stationary RICE that had a site rating of
less than or equal to 500 brake HP and
located at major sources of HAP
emissions. Also, EPA proposed
NESHAP for existing stationary CI
engines greater than 500 brake HP
located at major sources.
During the comment period following
the proposal, EPA received a number of
comments stating that EPA had
insufficient emissions data for existing
spark ignition (SI) engines. Because
commenters believed that EPA had
inadequate emissions data for SI
engines, they suggested that EPA should
consider seeking an extension of its
February 10, 2010 consent decree
deadline to allow additional time for the
collection of emissions data for SI
engines. Several commenters indicated
that they would work with EPA to
gather the necessary test data to obtain
adequate and sufficient emissions tests
for SI engines. Among other things, the
commenters noted that developing the
final requirements for SI engines later in
2010 would provide sufficient time for
industry to develop test programs,
conduct testing of engines, assemble test
results, and submit the complete results
to EPA for review. Other commenters
requested that EPA seek a one year
extension of its consent decree deadline
for SI engines, which would mean a
final rule for these engines by February
10, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In consideration of the comments,
EPA sought and obtained a six month
extension of its February 10, 2010
deadline for SI engines. EPA maintains
that this period is sufficient for the
commenters to provide additional test
data for the SI engines. Thus, pursuant
to the revised consent decree between
EPA and Sierra Club, EPA will finalize
requirements for existing stationary SI
engines that are less than or equal to 500
HP and located at major sources of HAP
emissions and existing stationary SI
engines that are located at area sources
of HAP emissions by August 10, 2010.
For these reasons, this final rule does
not contain standards for existing
stationary SI engines that are less than
or equal to 500 HP and located at major
sources of HAP emissions and existing
stationary SI engines that are located at
area sources of HAP emissions.
Consistent with the original consent
decree, EPA is finalizing regulations for
existing stationary CI engines that are
less than or equal to 500 HP and located
at major sources and existing stationary
CI engines that are located at area
sources in this final rule. EPA is also
promulgating requirements for existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines
that are greater than 500 HP and located
at major sources.
EPA plans to continue to work with
affected stakeholders over the next
several months in order to obtain more
complete emissions data for existing
stationary SI engines. The emissions
data collected will be analyzed and if
EPA’s review indicates that the
submitted data meets acceptance
criteria, EPA will include the data in
developing final standards. EPA will
promulgate regulations for existing
stationary SI engines by August 10,
2010.
II. Background
This action promulgates NESHAP for
existing stationary CI RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources, existing nonemergency CI engines with a site rating
greater than 500 HP at major sources,
and existing stationary CI RICE of any
power rating located at area sources.
EPA is finalizing these standards to
meet its statutory obligation to address
HAP emissions from these sources
under sections 112(d), 112(c)(3) and
112(k) of the CAA. The final NESHAP
for stationary RICE will be promulgated
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9650
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ,
which already contains standards
applicable to new stationary RICE and
some existing stationary RICE.
EPA promulgated NESHAP for
existing, new, and reconstructed
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP
located at major sources on June 15,
2004 (69 FR 33474). EPA promulgated
NESHAP for new and reconstructed
stationary RICE that are located at area
sources of HAP emissions and for new
and reconstructed stationary RICE that
have a site rating of less than or equal
to 500 HP that are located at major
sources of HAP emissions on January
18, 2008 (73 FR 3568). At that time, EPA
did not promulgate final requirements
for existing stationary RICE that are
located at area sources of HAP
emissions or for existing stationary RICE
that have a site rating of less than or
equal to 500 HP that are located at major
sources of HAP emissions. Although
EPA proposed standards for these
sources, EPA did not finalize these
standards due to comments received
indicating that the proposed Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
determinations for existing sources were
inappropriate because of a decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007,
which vacated EPA’s MACT standards
for the Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing source category
(40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ). Sierra
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir.
2007). Among other things, the DC
Circuit found that EPA’s no emission
reduction MACT determination in the
challenged rule was unlawful. Because
EPA had used a MACT floor
methodology in the proposed stationary
RICE rule similar to the methodology
used in the Brick MACT, EPA decided
to re-evaluate the MACT floors for
existing major sources that have a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake
HP consistent with the Court’s decision
in the Brick MACT case. Also, EPA has
re-evaluated the standards for existing
area sources in light of the comments
received on the proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders have
encouraged the Agency to review
whether there are further ways to reduce
emissions of pollutants from existing
stationary diesel engines. In its
comments on EPA’s 2005 proposed rule
for new stationary diesel engines (70 FR
39870), the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) suggested several possible
avenues for the regulation of existing
stationary diesel engines, including use
of diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed
diesel particulate filters (CDPF), as well
as the use of ultra low sulfur diesel
(ULSD) fuel. EDF suggested that such
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
controls can provide significant
pollution reductions at reasonable cost.
EPA issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in
January 2008, where it solicited
comment on several issues concerning
options to regulate emissions of
pollutants from existing stationary
diesel engines, generally, and
specifically from larger, older stationary
diesel engines. EPA solicited comment
and collected information to aid
decision-making related to the reduction
of HAP emissions from existing
stationary diesel engines and
specifically from larger, older engines
under CAA section 112 authorities. The
Agency sought comment on the larger,
older non-emergency CI engines because
available data indicate that those
engines emit the majority of particulate
matter (PM) and toxic emissions from
non-emergency stationary CI engines as
a whole. A summary of comments and
responses that were received on the
ANPRM is included in docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2007–0995. EPA proposed
and is finalizing emissions reductions
from existing non-emergency stationary
diesel engines at major sources that
have a site rating greater than 500 HP.
This action also revises the provisions
of the existing NESHAP as it applies to
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. This revision affects all
stationary engines regulated in this
NESHAP, including stationary engines
that were regulated by the 2004 and
2008 NESHAP. The revision of these
provisions is a result of a Court decision
that invalidated regulations related to
startup, shutdown and malfunction in
the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir.
2008)).
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What is the source category regulated
by the final rule?
This final rule addresses emissions
from existing stationary CI engines less
than or equal to 500 HP located at major
sources and all existing stationary CI
engines located at area sources. This
final rule also addresses emissions from
existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP at major
sources. A major source of HAP
emissions is generally a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to
emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons
(9.07 megagrams) or more per year or
any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per
year. An area source of HAP emissions
is a source that is not a major source.
This action revises the regulations at
40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, currently
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
applicable to new and reconstructed
stationary RICE and to existing
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP
located at major sources. Through this
action, we are adding to subpart ZZZZ
requirements for: Existing CI stationary
RICE less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources and existing CI
stationary RICE located at area sources.
1. Stationary CI RICE ≤500 HP at Major
Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ, to address HAP
emissions from existing stationary CI
RICE less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources. For stationary
engines less than or equal to 500 HP at
major sources, EPA must determine
what is the appropriate MACT for those
engines under sections 112(d)(2) and
(d)(3) of the CAA.
EPA has divided stationary CI RICE
into emergency and non-emergency
engines in order to capture the unique
differences between these types of
engines.
2. Stationary CI RICE at Area Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ, in order to address HAP
emissions from existing stationary RICE
located at area sources. Section 112(d)
of the CAA requires EPA to establish
NESHAP for both major and area
sources of HAP that are listed for
regulation under CAA section 112(c). As
noted above, an area source is a
stationary source that is not a major
source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls
for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that,
as a result of emissions of area sources,
pose the greatest threat to public health
in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in
1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999).
Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA
identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas,
and these HAP are referred to as the ‘‘30
urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) of the
CAA requires EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions
of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. EPA implemented these
requirements through the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715,
July 19, 1999). The area source
stationary engine source category was
one of the listed categories. A primary
goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75
percent reduction in cancer incidence
attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA
may elect to promulgate standards or
requirements for area sources ‘‘which
provide for the use of generally
available control technologies or
management practices by such sources
to reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants.’’ Additional information on
generally available control technologies
(GACT) and management practices is
found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate report Number 101–
228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
* * * methods, practices and techniques
which are commercially available and
appropriate for application by the sources in
the category considering economic impacts
and the technical capabilities of the firms to
operate and maintain the emissions control
systems.
Consistent with the legislative history,
EPA can consider costs and economic
impacts in determining GACT, which is
particularly important when developing
regulations for source categories, like
this one, that have many small
businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT
involves considering the control
technologies and management practices
that are generally available to the area
sources in the source category. EPA also
considers the standards applicable to
major sources in the same industrial
sector to determine if the control
technologies and management practices
are transferable and generally available
to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, EPA may also consider
technologies and practices at area and
major sources in similar categories to
determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered
generally available for the area source
category at issue. Finally, as EPA has
already noted, in determining GACT for
a particular area source category, EPA
considers the costs and economic
impacts of available control
technologies and management practices
on that category.
The urban HAP that must be regulated
at stationary RICE to achieve the CAA
section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate
categories accounting for 90 percent of
the urban HAP are: 7 polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, arsenic,
benzene, beryllium compounds, and
cadmium compounds. As explained
below, EPA chose to select
formaldehyde to serve as a surrogate for
HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
hazardous air pollutant present in the
highest concentration from stationary
engines. In addition, emissions data
show that formaldehyde emission levels
are related to other HAP emission
levels. EPA has previously
demonstrated that carbon monoxide
(CO) is an appropriate surrogate for
formaldehyde and is consequently
finalizing emission standards in terms
of CO for existing stationary CI RICE at
area sources.
Consistent with existing stationary CI
RICE at major sources, EPA has also
divided the existing stationary CI RICE
at area sources into emergency and nonemergency engines in order to properly
take into account the differences
between these engines.
3. Stationary CI RICE > 500 HP at Major
Sources
In addition, EPA is finalizing
emission standards for non-emergency
stationary CI engines greater than 500
HP at major sources.
B. What are the pollutants regulated by
the final rule?
The final rule regulates emissions of
HAP. Available emissions data show
that several HAP, which are formed
during the combustion process or which
are contained within the fuel burned,
are emitted from stationary engines. The
HAP which have been measured in
emission tests conducted on diesel fired
stationary RICE include: 1, 3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene,
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane,
naphthalene, PAH, polycyclic organic
matter, styrene, toluene, and xylene.
Metallic HAP from diesel fired
stationary RICE that have been
measured include: Cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, and selenium.
EPA described the health effects of
these HAP and other HAP emitted from
the operation of stationary RICE in the
preamble to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ, published on June 15, 2004 (69
FR 33474). More detail on the health
effects of these HAP and other HAP
emitted from the operation of stationary
RICE can be found in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final rule.
These HAP emissions are known to
cause, or contribute significantly to air
pollution, which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.
The final rule will limit emissions of
HAP through emissions standards for
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9651
CO for existing stationary CI RICE.
Carbon monoxide has been shown to be
an appropriate surrogate for HAP
emissions from CI engines. For the
NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA
found that there is a relationship
between CO emissions reductions and
HAP emissions reductions from CI
stationary engines. Therefore, because
testing for CO emissions has many
advantages over testing for HAP
emissions, CO emissions were chosen as
a surrogate for HAP emissions
reductions for CI stationary engines.
For the standards being finalized in
this action, EPA believes that previous
decisions regarding the appropriateness
of using CO in concentration (parts per
million (ppm)) levels as has been done
for stationary sources before as
surrogates for HAP are still valid.1
Consequently, EPA is finalizing
emission standards for CO for stationary
CI engines in order to regulate HAP
emissions. In addition, EPA is
promulgating separate provisions
relevant to emissions of metallic HAP
from existing diesel engines, as
discussed in section III.C. of this
preamble.
In addition to reducing HAP and CO,
the final rule will result in the reduction
of PM emissions from existing
stationary diesel engines. The
aftertreatment technologies expected to
be used to reduce HAP and CO
emissions also reduce emissions of PM
from diesel engines. Also, the final rule
requires the use of ULSD for dieselfueled stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP with a
displacement of less than 30 liters per
cylinder. This will result in lower
emissions of sulfur oxides (SOX) and
sulfate particulate from these engines by
reducing the sulfur content in the fuel.
C. What are the final requirements?
1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major
Sources.
The numerical emission standards
that are being finalized in this action for
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources are shown in
Table 1 of this preamble. The numerical
emission standards are in units of ppm
by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or percent
reduction.
1 In contrast, mobile source emission standards
for diesel engines (both nonroad and on-highway)
are promulgated on a mass/bhp-hr basis rather than
concentration.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9652
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—NUMERICAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY CI RICE LOCATED AT MAJOR SOURCES
Subcategory
Except during periods of startup
Non-Emergency CI 100≤HP≤300 .............................................................
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP ....................................................................
In addition, certain existing stationary
RICE located at major sources are
subject to fuel requirements. Owners
and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300
HP with a displacement of less than 30
liters per cylinder located at major
sources that use diesel fuel must use
only diesel fuel meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This
section requires that diesel fuel have a
maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and
either a minimum cetane index of 40 or
a maximum aromatic content of 35
volume percent. These fuel
requirements are being finalized in
order to reduce the potential formation
of sulfate compounds that are emitted
when high sulfur diesel fuel is used in
combination with oxidation catalysts
and to assist in the efficient operation of
the oxidation catalysts.
EPA is finalizing work practice
standards for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to
500 HP located at major sources and
existing stationary non-emergency CI
RICE less than 100 HP located at major
sources. Existing stationary emergency
CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources are subject to
the following work practices:
• Change oil and filter every 500
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, except that
sources can extend the period for
changing the oil if the oil is part of an
oil analysis program as discussed below
and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first; and
• Inspect all hoses and belts every
500 hours of operation or annually,
230 ppmvd CO at 15% O2.
49 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction.
23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction.
whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI
RICE less than 100 HP located at major
sources are subject to the following
work practices:
• Change oil and filter every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, except that
sources can extend the period for
changing the oil if the oil is part of an
oil analysis program as discussed below
and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first; and
• Inspect all hoses and belts every
500 hours or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.
Sources also have the option to use an
oil change analysis program to extend
the oil change frequencies specified
above. The analysis program must at a
minimum analyze the following three
parameters: Total Base Number,
viscosity, and percent water content.
The analysis must be conducted at the
same frequencies specified for changing
the engine oil. If the condemning limits
provided below are not exceeded, the
engine owner or operator is not required
to change the oil. If any of the
condemning limits are exceeded, the
engine owner or operator must change
the oil before continuing to use the
engine. The condemning limits are as
follows:
• Total Base Number is less than 30
percent of the Total Base Number of the
oil when new; or
• Viscosity of the oil has changed by
more than 20 percent from the viscosity
of the oil when new; or
• Percent water content (by volume)
is greater than 0.5.
Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR
63.6(g), sources can also request that the
Administrator approve alternative work
practices.
EPA is also including in the final rule
additional capture and collection
requirements to reduce metallic HAP
emissions. Owners and operators of
existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP located at
major sources must do one of the
following if the engine is not already
equipped with a closed crankcase
ventilation system: (1) Install a closed
crankcase ventilation system that
prevents crankcase emissions from
being emitted to the atmosphere, or
(2) install an open crankcase filtration
emission control system that reduces
emissions from the crankcase by
filtering the exhaust stream to remove
oil mist, particulates, and metals.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area
Sources
The numerical emission standards
that are being finalized in this action for
stationary CI RICE located at area
sources are shown in Table 2 of this
preamble. Existing stationary emergency
engines at area sources located at
residential, commercial, or institutional
facilities are not part of the source
category and therefore are not subject to
any requirements under this final rule.
Although existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP
that are located at area sources in Alaska
that are not accessible by the Federal
Aid Highway System (FAHS) do not
have to meet the CO emission standards
specified in Table 2 of this preamble,
they must meet the management
practices discussed in this section for
non-emergency CI RICE less than or
equal to 300 HP.
TABLE 2—NUMERICAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STATIONARY RICE LOCATED AT AREA SOURCES
Subcategory
Except during periods of startup
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP .....................................................................
Also, owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines
greater than 300 HP with a displacement
of less than 30 liters per cylinder
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
49 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction.
23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO reduction.
located at area sources that use diesel
fuel must use only diesel fuel meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b).
This section requires that diesel fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have a maximum sulfur content of 15
ppm and either a minimum cetane
index of 40 or a maximum aromatic
content of 35 volume percent.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
EPA is finalizing management
practices for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE located at area
sources and existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE less than or equal to
300 HP located at area sources. Existing
stationary emergency CI RICE located at
area sources are subject to the following
management practices:
• Change oil and filter every 500
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, except that
sources can extend the period for
changing the oil if the oil is part of an
oil analysis program as discussed below
and the condemning limits are not
exceeded;
• Inspect air cleaner every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first; and
• Inspect all hoses and belts every
500 hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI
RICE less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources are subject to the
following management practices:
• Change oil and filter every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, except that
sources can extend the period for
changing the oil if the oil is part of an
oil analysis program as discussed below
and the condemning limits are not
exceeded;
• Inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours
of operation or annually, whichever
comes first; and
• Inspect all hoses and belts every
500 hours or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.
As discussed above for major sources,
these sources may utilize an oil analysis
program in order to extend the specified
oil change requirement specified above.
Also, sources have the option to work
with State permitting authorities
pursuant to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
subpart E (‘‘Approval of State Programs
and Delegation of Federal Authorities’’)
for approval of alternative management
practices. Subpart E implements section
112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes
EPA to approve alternative State/local/
Tribal HAP standards or programs when
such requirements are demonstrated to
be no less stringent than EPA
promulgated standards.
Finally, in order to reduce metallic
HAP emissions, existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300
HP located at area sources must do one
of the following if the engine is not
already equipped with a closed
crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install
a closed crankcase ventilation system
that prevents crankcase emissions from
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2)
install an open crankcase filtration
emission control system that reduces
emissions from the crankcase by
filtering the exhaust stream to remove
oil mist, particulates, and metals.
3. Startup Requirements
The following stationary engines are
subject to specific operational standards
during engine startup:
• Existing CI RICE less than or equal
to 500 HP located at major sources,
• Existing non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 500 HP located at major
sources,
• Existing CI RICE located at area
sources,
• New or reconstructed nonemergency two-stroke lean burn (2SLB)
>500 HP located at a major source of
HAP emissions,
• New or reconstructed nonemergency four-stroke lean burn (4SLB)
>=250 HP located at a major source of
HAP emissions,
• Existing non-emergency four-stroke
rich burn (4SRB) >500 HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions,
• New or reconstructed nonemergency 4SRB >500 HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, and
• New or reconstructed nonemergency CI >500 HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions.
Engine startup is defined as the time
from initial start until applied load and
engine and associated equipment
reaches steady state or normal
operation. For stationary engines with
catalytic controls, engine startup means
the time from initial start until applied
load and engine and associated
equipment reaches steady state, or
normal operation, including the
catalyst. Owners and operators must
minimize the engine’s time spent at idle
and minimize the engine’s startup to a
period needed for appropriate and safe
loading of the engine, not to exceed 30
minutes, after which time the engine
must meet the otherwise applicable
emission standards. These requirements
will limit the HAP emissions during
periods of engine startup. Pursuant to
the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(g),
engines at major sources may petition
the Administrator for an alternative
work practice. An owner or operator of
an engine at an area source can work
with its State permitting authority
pursuant to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
subpart E for approval of an alternative
management practice. See 40 CFR
Subpart E (setting forth requirements
for, among other things, equivalency by
permit, rule substitution).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9653
D. What are the operating limitations?
In addition to the standards discussed
above, EPA is finalizing operating
limitations for stationary nonemergency CI RICE that are greater than
500 HP. Owners and operators of
engines that are equipped with
oxidation catalyst must maintain the
catalyst so that the pressure drop across
the catalyst does not change by more
than 2 inches of water from the pressure
drop across the catalyst that was
measured during the initial performance
test. Owners and operators of these
engines must also maintain the
temperature of the stationary RICE
exhaust so that the catalyst inlet
temperature is between 450 and 1350
degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Owners and
operators may petition for a different
temperature range; the petition must
demonstrate why it is operationally
necessary and appropriate to operate
below the temperature range specified
in the rule (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)). Owners
and operators of engines that are not
using oxidation catalyst must comply
with any operating limitations approved
by the Administrator.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines
greater than 300 HP meeting the
requirement to use open or closed
crankcases must follow the
manufacturer’s specified maintenance
requirements for operating and
maintaining the open or closed
crankcase ventilation systems and
replacing the crankcase filters, or can
request the Administrator to approve
different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer
requirements.
E. What are the requirements for
demonstrating compliance?
The following sections describe the
requirements for demonstrating
compliance under the final rule.
1. Existing Stationary CI RICE at Major
Sources
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are less
than 100 HP and stationary emergency
CI RICE located at major sources must
operate and maintain their stationary
RICE and aftertreatment control device
(if any) according to the manufacturer’s
emission-related written instructions or
develop their own maintenance plan.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are less
than 100 HP and existing stationary
emergency CI RICE located at major
sources do not have to conduct any
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9654
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
performance testing because they are
not subject to numerical emission
standards.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are greater
than or equal to 100 HP and less than
or equal to 500 HP must conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate
that they are achieving the required
emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 500 HP located at major
sources must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every
8,760 hours of operation or 3 years,
whichever comes first, to demonstrate
that they are achieving the required
emission standards.
Owners and operators of stationary
non-emergency CI RICE that are greater
than 500 HP and are located at a major
source must continuously monitor and
record the catalyst inlet temperature if
an oxidation catalyst is being used on
the engine. The pressure drop across the
catalyst must also be measured monthly.
If an oxidation catalyst is not being used
on the engine, the owner or operator
must continuously monitor and record
the operating parameters (if any)
approved by the Administrator.
On October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59956),
EPA proposed performance
specification requirements for
continuous parametric monitoring
systems (CPMS). Currently there are no
performance specifications for the
CPMS that are required for continuously
monitoring the catalyst inlet
temperature. The timetable for finalizing
the proposed performance specification
requirements is uncertain; therefore,
EPA plans to finalize performance
specification requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart ZZZZ for the CPMS
systems used for continuous catalyst
inlet temperature monitoring when the
final requirements are promulgated for
existing SI engines in August 2010.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area
Sources
Owners and operators of existing
stationary RICE located at area sources
that are subject to management
practices, as shown in Table 2 of this
preamble, must develop a maintenance
plan that specifies how the management
practices will be met. Owners and
operators of existing stationary RICE
that are subject to management practices
do not have to conduct any performance
testing.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 300 HP that are located at
area sources must conduct an initial
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
performance test to demonstrate that
they are achieving the required emission
standards.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE that
are greater than 500 HP and located at
area sources and are not limited use
stationary RICE must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every
8,760 hours of operation or 3 years,
whichever comes first, to demonstrate
that they are achieving the required
emission standards. Owners and
operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE that are greater than
500 HP and located at area sources and
are limited use stationary RICE must
conduct an initial performance test and
must test every 8,760 hours of operation
or 5 years, whichever comes first, to
demonstrate that they are achieving the
required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE that
are greater than 500 HP and are located
at an area source must continuously
monitor and record the catalyst inlet
temperature if an oxidation catalyst is
being used on the engine. The pressure
drop across the catalyst must also be
measured monthly. If an oxidation
catalyst is not being used on the engine,
the owner or operator must
continuously monitor and record the
operating parameters (if any) approved
by the Administrator.
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements?
The following sections describe the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that are required under the
final rule.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary emergency RICE that do not
meet the requirements for nonemergency engines are required to keep
records of their hours of operation.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary emergency RICE must install
a non-resettable hour meter on their
engines to record the hours of operation
of the engine. Emergency stationary
RICE may be operated for the purpose
of maintenance checks and readiness
testing, provided that the tests are
recommended by the Federal, State or
local government, the manufacturer, the
vendor, or the insurance company
associated with the engine. Maintenance
checks and readiness testing of such
units are limited to 100 hours per year.
There is no time limit on the use of
emergency stationary engines in
emergency situations; however, the
owner or operator is required to record
the length of operation and the reason
the engine was in operation during that
time. Records must be maintained
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
documenting why the engine was
operating to ensure the 100 hours per
year limit for maintenance and testing
operation is not exceeded. In addition,
owners and operators are allowed to
operate their stationary emergency RICE
for non-emergency purposes for 50
hours per year, but those 50 hours are
counted towards the total 100 hours
provided for operation other than for
true emergencies. The 50 hours per year
for non-emergency purposes cannot be
used to generate income for a facility,
for example, to supply power to an
electric grid or otherwise supply power
as part of a financial arrangement with
another entity. However, owners and
operators may operate the emergency
engine for a maximum of 15 hours per
year as part of a demand response
program if the regional transmission
organization or equivalent balancing
authority and transmission operator has
determined there are emergency
conditions that could lead to a potential
electrical blackout, for example
unusually low frequency, equipment
overload, capacity or energy deficiency,
or unacceptable voltage level. The
engine may not be operated for more
than 30 minutes prior to the time when
the emergency condition is expected to
occur, and the engine operation must be
terminated immediately after the facility
is notified that the emergency condition
is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per
year of demand response operation are
counted as part of the 50 hours of
operation per year provided for nonemergency situations. Owners and
operators must keep records showing
how they were notified of the
emergency condition and by whom, and
the time that the engine was operated as
part of demand response.
Owners and operators of existing
stationary CI RICE located at area
sources that are subject to management
practices as shown in Table 2 of this
preamble are required to keep records
that show that management practices
that are required are being met. These
records must include, at a minimum:
Oil and filter change dates and
corresponding hour on the hour meter;
inspection and replacement dates for air
cleaners, hoses, and belts; and records
of other emission-related repairs and
maintenance performed.
Owners and operators of existing nonemergency stationary CI RICE greater
than 300 HP must keep records of the
manufacturer’s recommended
maintenance procedures for the closed
crankcase ventilation system or open
crankcase filtration system and records
of the maintenance performed on the
system.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
In terms of reporting requirements,
owners and operators of existing
stationary RICE, except stationary RICE
that are less than 100 HP, existing
emergency stationary RICE, and existing
stationary RICE that are not subject to
numerical emission standards, must
submit all of the applicable notifications
as listed in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
including an initial notification,
notification of performance test, and a
notification of compliance for each
stationary RICE which must comply
with the specified emission limitations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
IV. Summary of Significant Changes
Since Proposal
Most of the rationale used to develop
the proposed rule remains the same for
the final rule. Therefore, the rationale
previously provided in the preamble to
the proposed rule is not repeated in the
final rule, and the rationale sections of
the rule, as proposed, should be referred
to. Major changes that have been made
to the rule since proposal are discussed
in this section with rationale following
in the Summary of Responses to Major
Comments section.
A. Applicability
EPA proposed to regulate HAP
emissions from existing stationary
engines less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources and all existing
stationary engines located at area
sources. EPA also proposed NESHAP for
existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP that are
located at major sources.
In the final rule, EPA is only
regulating HAP emissions from existing
stationary CI engines. EPA will address
HAP emissions from existing stationary
SI engines in a separate rulemaking later
this year.
Another change from the proposal is
that the final rule is not applicable to
existing stationary emergency engines at
area sources that are located at
residential, commercial, or institutional
facilities. These engines are not subject
to any requirements under the final rule
because they are not part of the
regulated source category. EPA has
found that existing stationary
emergency engines located at
residential, commercial, and
institutional facilities that are area
sources were not included in the
original Urban Air Toxics Strategy
inventory and were not included in the
listing of urban area sources. More
information on this issue can be found
in the memorandum entitled, ‘‘Analysis
of the Types of Engines Used to
Estimate the CAA Section 112(k) Area
Source Inventory for Stationary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines,’’ available from the rulemaking
docket.
B. Final Emission Standards
1. Existing Stationary CI Engines <100
HP Located at Major Sources
For the proposed rule, EPA required
existing stationary engines less than 50
HP that are located at major sources to
meet a formaldehyde emission standard.
EPA is not finalizing a formaldehyde
emission standard for stationary CI
engines less than 50 HP, but is instead
requiring compliance with a work
practice. In addition, in light of several
comments asserting that the level at
which we subcategorized small engines
at major sources was inappropriate, EPA
is finalizing a work practice standard for
engines less than 100 HP.
In the proposed rule, existing
stationary CI engines less than 100 HP
located at major sources were required
to meet a 40 ppmvd CO at 15 percent
oxygen (O2) standard. In the final rule,
all existing stationary CI engines less
than 100 HP located at major sources
must meet work practices. These work
practices are described in section III.C.
of this preamble. EPA believes that work
practices are appropriate and justified
for this group of stationary engines
because the application of measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.
Further information on EPA’s decision
can be found in section V.B. below and
in the memorandum entitled, ‘‘MACT
Floor Determination for Existing
Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less
Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major
Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area
Sources,’’ which is available from the
rulemaking docket.
2. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency
CI Engines 100≤HP≤300
EPA is finalizing a CO emission
standard for existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than or
equal to 100 HP and less than or equal
to 300 HP located at major sources of
230 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2
standard. EPA revised the proposed CO
standard for this group of engines based
on additional information and data
received after the proposal, which led to
a reevaluation of the MACT floor for
these stationary engines. A discussion of
the final MACT floor determination can
be found in the memo entitled ‘‘MACT
Floor and MACT Determination for
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI
RICE Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP
Located at Major Sources,’’ which is
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9655
available from the rulemaking docket.
All existing stationary CI engines less
than or equal to 300 HP located at area
sources, both emergency and nonemergency, are subject to management
practice standards under the final rule,
as was proposed.
3. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency
CI Engines >300 HP
EPA proposed that existing stationary
non-emergency CI engines greater than
300 HP meet a 4 ppmvd CO at 15
percent O2 standard or a 90 percent CO
reduction standard. Numerous
commenters indicated that EPA’s
dataset was insufficient and urged EPA
to gather more data to obtain a more
complete representation of emissions
from existing stationary CI engines.
Commenters also questioned the
emission standard setting approach that
EPA used at proposal and claimed that
the proposed standards did not take into
account emissions variability and may
not be achievable. For the final rule EPA
has obtained additional test data for
existing stationary CI engines and has
included this additional data in the
MACT floor analysis. EPA is also using
an approach that better considers
emissions variability, as discussed in
V.B. below.
In the final rule, EPA is providing
owners and operators the option of
meeting either a CO concentration or a
CO percent reduction standard. Owners
and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300
HP and less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major and area sources must
either reduce CO emissions by at least
70 percent or limit the concentration of
CO in the engine exhaust to 49 ppmvd,
at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators
of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP located at
major and area sources must either
reduce CO emissions by at least 70
percent or limit the concentration of CO
in the engine exhaust to 23 ppmvd, at
15 percent O2. EPA’s review of the data
indicate that it is appropriate to base the
MACT standard on a reduction level of
70 percent, which takes into account the
variability of the emission reduction
efficiency of aftertreatment under
various operational conditions.
4. Existing Stationary Emergency CI
Engines 100≤HP≤500 Located at Major
Sources
For existing stationary emergency
engines located at major sources, we
proposed that these engines be subject
to a 40 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2
standard. In the final rule, existing
stationary emergency CI engines greater
than or equal to 100 HP and less than
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9656
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
or equal to 500 HP and located at major
sources must meet work practices.
These work practices are described in
section III.C. of this preamble. EPA
believes that work practices are
appropriate and justified for this group
of stationary engines because the
application of measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.
Further information on EPA’s decision
can be found in the memorandum
entitled ‘‘MACT Floor Determination for
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI
RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located
at Major Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area
Sources,’’ which is available from the
rulemaking docket.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
5. Existing Stationary Emergency CI
Engines >500 HP Located at Area
Sources
For existing stationary emergency
engines located at area sources, EPA
reevaluated the information available
for emergency engines and considered
extensive input received from industry
and other groups who asserted that the
proposed standards were not GACT for
emergency engines at area sources. In
the final rule, as discussed below in
section V.B., all existing stationary
emergency CI engines located at area
sources must meet management practice
standards.
C. Management Practices
EPA proposed management practices
for several subcategories of engines
located at area sources. EPA explained
that the proposed management practices
would be expected to ensure that
emission control systems are working
properly and would help minimize HAP
emissions from the engines. EPA
proposed specific maintenance practices
and asked for comments on the need
and appropriateness for those
procedures. Based on feedback received
during the public comment period,
which included information submitted
in comment letters and additional
information EPA received following the
close of the comment period from
different industry groups, EPA is
finalizing management practices for
existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources and all existing
emergency stationary CI engines located
at area sources.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources are required to
change the oil and filter every 1,000
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, inspect air
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation
or annually, whichever comes first, and
inspect all hoses and belts every 500
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. Existing emergency
stationary CI engines located at area
sources are required under the final rule
to change the oil and filter every 500
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, inspect air
cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, and
inspect all hoses and belts every 500
hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. EPA is adding an option for
sources to use an oil change analysis
program to extend the oil change
frequencies specified above. The
analysis program must at a minimum
analyze the following three parameters:
Total Base Number, viscosity, and
percent water content. If the
condemning limits provided below are
not exceeded, the engine owner or
operator is not required to change the
oil. If any of the limits are exceeded, the
engine owner or operator must change
the oil before continuing to use the
engine. The condemning limits are as
follows:
• Total Base Number is less than 30
percent of the Total Base Number of the
oil when new; or
• Viscosity of the oil has changed by
more than 20 percent from the viscosity
of the oil when new; or
• Percent water content (by volume)
is greater than 0.5.
Owners and operators of all engines
subject to management practices also
have the option to work with State
permitting authorities pursuant to EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for
alternative maintenance practices to be
used instead of the specific maintenance
practices promulgated in this rule. The
maintenance practices must be at least
as stringent as those specified in the
final rule.
The final rule specifies that in
situations where an emergency engine is
operating during an emergency and it is
not possible to shut down the engine in
order to perform the work or
management practice requirements on
the schedule required in the final rule,
or if performing the work or
management practice on the required
schedule would otherwise pose an
unacceptable risk under Federal, State,
or local law, the maintenance activity
can be delayed until the emergency is
over or the unacceptable risk under
Federal, State, or local law has abated.
The maintenance should be performed
as soon as practicable after the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
emergency has ended or the
unacceptable risk under Federal, State,
or local law has abated. Sources must
report any failure to perform the work
practice on the schedule required and
the Federal, State or local law under
which the risk was deemed
unacceptable.
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
EPA proposed formaldehyde and CO
emission standards for existing
stationary engines at major sources to
apply during periods of startup and
malfunction. EPA also proposed certain
standards for existing stationary engines
at area sources that would apply during
startup and malfunction. Based on
various comments and concerns with
the proposed emission standards for
periods of startup, EPA has determined
that it is not feasible to finalize
numerical emission standards that
would apply during startup because the
application of measurement
methodology to this operation is not
practicable due to technological and
economic limitations, as discussed in
detail in section V.D.
As a result, EPA is promulgating
operational standards during startup
that specify that owners and operators
must limit the engine startup time to no
more than 30 minutes and must
minimize the engine’s time spent at idle
during startup. Based on information
reviewed by EPA, engine startup
typically requires no more than 30
minutes. We received comments
indicating that there are conditions
where it may take more than 30 minutes
to startup the engine, for example for
cold starts or where the ambient
conditions are very cold. However,
commenters did not provide enough
specificity in their comments, nor did
commenters provide data, to determine
whether any scenarios were appropriate
to allow a longer startup period. Owners
and operators of engines at major
sources have the option to petition the
Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR
63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
Any petition must be based on specific
factual information indicating the
reason the alternative work practice is
necessary for that engine and is no less
stringent than startup requirements in
the rule. An owner or operator of an
engine at an area source can work with
its State permitting authority pursuant
to EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR subpart
E for approval of an alternative
management practice, based on specific
factual information indicating the
reason that an alternative management
practice is necessary for that engine.
Such alternative management practice
must be demonstrated to be no less
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
stringent than EPA promulgated
standards.
As discussed further below, in section
V.D., EPA is not setting separate
standards for malfunctions in this rule.
Therefore, the standards that apply
during normal operation also apply
during malfunction. EPA believes that
any emissions occurring during a
malfunction would be of such a short
duration compared to the emissions
averaged during overall testing time
(three one-hour runs) that the engine
would still be able to comply with the
emission standard. In addition, EPA
does not view malfunction as a distinct
operating mode and, therefore, any
emissions that occur at such times do
not need to be taken into account in
setting CAA section 112(d) standards.
Further, as is explained in more detail
in Section V.D. below, even if
malfunctions were considered a distinct
operating mode, we believe it would be
impracticable to take into account
malfunctions in setting CAA section
112(d) standards.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
E. Other
EPA is including an additional
requirement in the final rule that will
reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners
and operators of existing stationary nonemergency CI engines greater than 300
HP must do one of the following if the
engine is not already equipped with a
closed crankcase ventilation system: (1)
Install a closed crankcase ventilation
system that prevents crankcase
emissions from being emitted to the
atmosphere, or (2) install an open
crankcase filtration emission control
system that reduces the crankcase
emissions by filtering the exhaust
stream to remove oil mist, particulates,
and metals. Owners and operators must
follow the manufacturer’s specified
maintenance requirements for operating
and maintaining the open or closed
crankcase ventilation systems and
replacing the crankcase filters, or can
request the Administrator to approve
different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer
requirements.
EPA is including special provisions in
the final rule for existing stationary nonemergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP
located at area sources in Alaska not
accessible by the FAHS. Owners and
operators of these engines do not have
to meet the CO emission standards
specified in Table 2 of this preamble,
but must instead meet the management
practices that are described for
stationary non-emergency CI RICE less
than or equal to 300 HP in section III.C.
of this preamble.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
The final rule specifies that stationary
CI engines that are used to startup
combustion turbines should meet the
same requirements as stationary
emergency CI engines.
V. Summary of Responses to Major
Comments
A more detailed summary of
comments and EPA’s responses can be
found in the document entitled
‘‘Response to Public Comments on
Proposed National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Existing Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines Located at
Area Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions or Have a Site Rating Less
Than or Equal to 500 Brake HP Located
at Major Sources of Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions,’’ which is available
from the rulemaking docket (see
ADDRESSES section).
A. Applicability
Comment: Numerous commenters
expressed concern over EPA’s decision
to not distinguish between rural and
urban engines at area sources in the
proposed rule. Several commenters
requested that EPA reevaluate its
congressional authority to regulate area
HAP sources in rural areas. The
commenters believed that the proposal
is inconsistent with 42 U.S.C.
7412(n)(4)(B) [CAA section
112(n)(4)(B)]. Commenters requested
clarification of EPA’s rationale to
regulate low levels of emissions from
engines at oil and gas production
facilities outside metropolitan areas,
contending that EPA has applied this
rule more broadly than the
Congressional intent of the CAA, and
requested that EPA reevaluate this issue
of whether EPA can regulate rural area
sources in light of the 42 U.S.C.
7412(n)(4)(B) language.
Commenters stated that EPA has
based this rulemaking for area sources
on sections of the CAA and its Urban
Air Toxics Strategy that are intended to
remove threats to public health in urban
areas. The commenters do not believe
that the remote RICE at area sources in
the oil and gas industry threaten public
health in urban areas. Several
commenters noted that the NESHAP for
glycol gas dehydrators (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HH) takes into account the
location of area sources and does not
apply the specific requirements of the
rule to rural area sources. The
commenters believe that the same
approach should be used for the RICE
rule, i.e., engines that are not located in
or near populated areas should be
exempt or subject to an alternative set
of requirements so as not to force
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9657
expensive requirements on remote
engines that have no impact on public
health.
One commenter on behalf of the
agricultural industry expressed that the
operational area of these engines has not
been studied to evaluate the
environmental benefit obtained in
congested areas as compared to open
agricultural locations. This commenter
opined that there should be some
measure of variable compliance
provided in relation to the area of
operation of these engines.
Response: EPA is finalizing its
proposal to regulate existing stationary
CI engines located at area sources on a
nationwide basis. EPA has not made a
final determination with regard to
existing SI engines at area sources, and
will do so in the later rule finalizing
regulations for SI engines. EPA believes
that the CAA provides the Agency with
the authority to regulate area sources
nationwide. Section 112(k)(1) of the
CAA states that ‘‘It is the purpose of this
subsection to achieve a substantial
reduction in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from area sources and an
equivalent reduction in the public
health risks associated with such
sources including a reduction of not less
than 75 per centum in the incidence of
cancer attributable to emissions from
such sources.’’ Consistent with this
expressed purpose of section 112(k) of
the CAA to reduce both emissions and
risks, CAA section 112(k)(3)(i) requires
that EPA list not less than 30 HAP that,
as a result of emissions from area
sources, present the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of
urban areas. Sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(ii) of the CAA require that EPA
list area source categories that represent
not less than 90 percent of the area
source emissions of each of the listed
HAP. Section 112(c) of the CAA requires
that EPA issue standards for listed
categories under CAA section 112(d).
These relevant statutory provisions
authorize EPA to regulate listed area
source engines and not just engines
located in urban areas. EPA believes
that sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the
CAA do not prohibit issuing area source
rules of national applicability. EPA also
disagrees with the statement that the
proposal was inconsistent with section
112(n)(4)(B) of the CAA. The term
‘‘associated equipment’’ was defined for
the purposes of subpart ZZZZ in the
first RICE MACT rule not to include
stationary RICE. EPA has not revisited
that issue in this rule and the
commenters have not provided
sufficient reason to revisit that issue.
EPA does not believe that existing
stationary CI engines are more prevalent
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9658
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
in rural areas than in urban areas.
Indeed, EPA estimates that only 17
percent of stationary CI area source
engines subject to the rule are located in
rural areas, using the definitions used in
the Urban Air Toxics Strategy. Given the
requirement to regulate all engines in
the source category in urban areas, we
do not believe requiring regulation on a
national basis is inappropriate.
The majority of stationary CI engines
are used for emergency purposes. EPA
has estimated that 80 percent of
stationary CI engines are emergency
engines and EPA has taken steps in the
final rule to reduce the burden on
owners and operators of these engines.
All emergency CI engines located at area
sources of HAP emissions are subject
only to management practices under the
final rule. EPA has also determined that
existing emergency engines located at
residential, institutional, and
commercial facilities that are area
sources of HAP emissions were not
included in the original Urban Air
Toxics Strategy inventory and therefore
are not included in the source category
listing. In the final rule, EPA has
specified that those engines are not
subject to subpart ZZZZ. In addition,
existing non-emergency CI engines less
than or equal to 300 HP that are located
at area sources of HAP emissions are
also only subject to management
practices. EPA believes that requiring
management practices instead of
specific emission limitations and/or
control efficiency requirements on the
majority of existing stationary CI
engines at area sources alleviates
concerns regarding costly and
burdensome requirements for rural
sources.
For existing stationary non-emergency
CI engines greater than 300 HP, EPA
determined that GACT was the use of
oxidation catalyst control. The
commenters did not provide a reason
that GACT would be different for nonemergency stationary CI engines located
in rural areas. In determining GACT,
EPA can consider factors such as
availability and feasibility of control
technologies and management practices,
as well as costs and economic impacts.
These factors are not different for
existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines in urban versus rural areas. For
example, the availability of oxidation
catalysts would be the same for urban
and rural engines, and if an engine was
in a rural location, that would not
preclude an owner from being able to
install aftertreatment controls. For the
final rule, EPA estimated the capital
cost of retrofitting an existing stationary
non-emergency CI engine to around
$7,000 for a 300 HP engine. Annual
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
costs of operating and maintaining the
control device are estimated to be
approximately $2,000 per year for the
same engine. These costs would not be
prohibitive for any engines and either
rural or urban areas and are expected to
be the same no matter the location.
Furthermore, the controls that are
expected to be used on non-emergency
engines above 300 HP will have the cobenefit of PM reductions. PM emissions
can travel tens or hundreds of miles
from their source, so emissions from
diesel engines in rural areas can impact
urban populations. There is also no
reason to distinguish between the rural
and urban area source engines that are
subject to management practices. There
is nothing limiting owners and
operators of existing stationary CI
engines located in rural areas from
following the management practices
specified in the final rule.
In response to requests that
agricultural stationary engines should
be treated differently from other engines
and should be allowed special
provisions, EPA is of the understanding
that the majority of stationary engines
used for agricultural purposes are below
300 HP. Several commenters
representing agricultural interests have
made the statement to EPA that most of
their engines are below 300 HP. As
previously discussed in this response,
EPA is finalizing management practices
for area source engines less than or
equal to 300 HP. Therefore, it is not
expected that many stationary
agricultural engines will be required to
put on controls. Agricultural engines
less than or equal to 300 HP at rural and
urban area sources would be required to
follow the management practices
specified in the final rule. Management
practices will ensure that emissions are
reduced and engines are properly
operated.
Consistent with the proposal and for
the reasons discussed, EPA is finalizing
national requirements for existing
stationary CI engines without a
distinction between urban and nonurban areas.
Comment: Five commenters
expressed that EPA’s proposal would
have a significant impact to the State of
Alaska, especially with respect to power
generation in their rural communities.
They explained that Alaska has unique
regional circumstances whereby
regulating diesel engine emissions in
rural Alaska in the same manner as
other engines nationwide could have
unintended negative consequences. The
commenters were concerned about the
extension of section 112(k) of the CAA
requirements to rural sources,
expressing that the purpose of CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
section 112(k) is to address urban
issues. The commenters opined that the
scale of HAP emissions in rural areas of
Alaska is different and should be
addressed in a way that is appropriate
to the rural conditions that exist there.
The commenters expressed that,
historically, EPA has recognized the
unique aspects of rural Alaska’s diesel
distribution system and diesel engine
use and has allowed Alaska some
flexibility (e.g., under the CI NSPS). The
commenters requested that EPA assess
and consider rural Alaska’s situation
and allow for flexibility to address the
challenges associated with the proposed
rule.
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenters that stationary CI area
source engines located in remote areas
of Alaska have special challenges that
should be taken into consideration. As
the commenters noted, over 180 rural
communities in Alaska that are not
accessible by the Federal Aid Highway
System rely on stationary diesel engines
and fuel for electricity. They are
scattered over long distances in remote
areas and are not connected to
population centers by road or power
grid. They are located in the most severe
arctic environments in the United
States. Transportation of diesel fuel to
these areas is dependent on weather and
communities typically pay some of the
highest prices for fuel in the United
States. Stationary engines located in
rural areas of Alaska have different fuel
storage and use logistics and higher
operating and compliance costs. Many
of these communities are accessible
only by plane. In light of the comments,
we believe it is appropriate to treat
engines located at area sources in areas
of Alaska that are not accessible by the
Federal Aid Highway System as a
separate subcategory. We re-evaluated
GACT for the subcategory of stationary
engines located at area sources of HAP
that are in an area of Alaska that is not
accessible by the Federal Aid Highway
System. For these engines, we
determined that GACT is the same
management practices as those required
for non-emergency CI RICE less than or
equal to 300 HP located at area sources.
For more discussion of this issue, refer
to the memo entitled ‘‘MACT Floor
Determination for Existing Stationary
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100
HP and Existing Stationary Emergency
CI RICE Located at Major Sources and
GACT for Existing Stationary CI RICE
Located at Area Sources.’’
B. Final Emission Requirements
Comment: Several commenters
expressed opposition to EPA’s proposal
to have emission standards apply to
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
small engines at major sources. Three
commenters said that EPA should not
finalize emission limits for engines less
than 100 HP. One commenter argued
that stationary engines that are less than
100 HP should be exempted from
numerical HAP emission standards. In
the commenter’s opinion, it is not cost
effective to install add-on controls on
small engines or to purchase a new
engine. According to the commenter,
the majority of engines in this size range
are operated for intermittent household
or other infrequent use and emissions
are naturally limited, the commenter
said, and low emissions do not justify
the costs associated with requiring a
numerical HAP limit. One commenter
does not believe that measurement is
economically practicable for a small
unit as the cost of testing will likely
exceed the value of the engine itself.
The commenter urged EPA to exclude
small sources from the category.
Response: EPA has reanalyzed its
proposed standards based on the
information and data presented and
EPA concludes that it is not feasible
within the context of this rulemaking to
prescribe emission limitations for
existing stationary CI engines smaller
than 100 HP located at major sources,
because the measurement of emissions
from these engines is not practicable
due to technological and economic
limitations. In order to measure the
emissions from these engines on a
ppmvd at 15 percent O2 basis, the
following test methods are required:
EPA Method 1 or 1A for selection of
sampling ports; EPA Method 3, 3A, or
3B for determining the O2
concentration; EPA Method 4 for
measuring the moisture content, and
EPA Method 10 or ASTM D6522–00
(2005) for measuring the CO
concentration. These test methods
require the sample point to be a certain
distance between the engine and the
exhaust. Because engines below 100 HP
often have exhaust pipes with very
small diameters and lengths, stack
testing using these methods could
require a modification or extension of
the exhaust pipe to accomplish the test.
The cost to do the testing ranges from
approximately $1,000–$5,000
depending on the method used.
Generally, 100 HP engines cost around
$5,000–$7,000 dollars and 50 HP
engines cost approximately $4,000–
$5,000, so the cost of performance
testing could approach the cost of the
engine itself. Given the cost of the
testing itself, the physical adjustments
necessary to accomplish the test, and
the particular circumstances pertaining
to stationary engines below 100 HP, we
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
believe that the application of
measurement methodology to this class
of engines is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating work
practice standards for these engines.
Additional detail regarding this analysis
can be found in the memorandum
entitled ‘‘MACT Floor Determination for
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI
RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located
at Major Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area
Sources.’’
Comment: One commenter stated that
the use of CO as a surrogate for HAP
emissions from stationary diesel engines
is flawed and does not meet the DC
Courts three part test for reasonableness.
According to the commenter, the DC
Court surrogate three part test requires
EPA to demonstrate each of the
following: (1) HAP from the source must
be ‘‘invariantly present’’ in the surrogate;
(2) control technology that reduces the
surrogate must ‘‘indiscriminately
capture’’ HAP from the source; and (3)
control of the surrogate is the only
means to control HAP from the source.
The commenter pointed out that EPA
admitted that CO may not be an
adequate surrogate for metallic HAP
emissions in the current proposal. The
commenter argued that oxidation
catalyst is only capable of 30 percent
reduction of PM, thus allowing 70
percent of the PM, including metallic
and semi-volatile HAP to be emitted to
the atmosphere. In addition, the
commenter pointed out that
technologies that control CO are not the
only means by which a source can
achieve reductions in HAP emitted from
stationary diesel engines. The
commenter believes that based on the
DC Court’s three tests, final standards
are not appropriate, and recommended
that EPA adopt standards based on PM
rather than CO reductions.
Response: EPA believes that CO
emissions are an appropriate surrogate
for HAP emissions for stationary CI
engines. EPA has demonstrated the
relationship between CO emissions and
HAP emissions in previous rulemakings
for stationary engines. EPA does not
have any data to support a relationship
between PM emissions and HAP
emissions for stationary CI engines, nor
did the commenter provide any data to
support such a relationship for this
source category. It is clear that there are
methods for reducing PM emissions,
like reducing sulfur from fuel, that may
not lead to a reduction in HAP. In
addition, it is not clear that reductions
in PM would reduce emissions of all
HAP emitted from stationary engines,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9659
particularly emissions of formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, etc., that represent the
vast majority of the HAP emissions from
this source category. Therefore, for this
particular source category, use of PM as
a surrogate for HAP is not appropriate.
The commenter also did not provide
any data from testing of stationary CI
engines to show that CO is not a good
surrogate for metallic HAP. CO is also
a better surrogate for HAP emitted from
stationary CI engines than PM because
PM is more difficult and expensive to
measure than CO for this source
category. For semi-volatile HAP, the
testing conducted by EPA at Colorado
State University showed that an
oxidation catalyst reduced PAH
emissions by greater than 90 percent for
most of the PAH that were tested, and
that CO level reductions correlated with
level reductions in such HAP.
In addition, as discussed above, EPA
is taking an additional action pursuant
to its authority under section
112(d)(2)(B) and (C) for further control
of metallic HAP. EPA determined that
the most effective and achievable
method for of controlling metallic HAP
emissions from existing stationary CI
engines is through the use of crankcase
emission control systems. Combustion
gases and oil mist that are vented from
the engine crankcase are a substantial
source of any metallic HAP emissions
from stationary CI engines. EPA is
promulgating a further standard under
section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) that
requires stationary non-emergency
diesel engines greater than 300 HP to
install either an open or closed
crankcase filtration emission control
system if the engine is not already
equipped with one. The open crankcase
filtration emission control system
reduces emissions from the crankcase
by filtering the exhaust stream to
remove oil mist, particulates, and
metals. In the case of the closed system,
crankcase emissions are collected and
filtered and those that remain in a
gaseous state are routed to the intake
manifold for burning. We believe this
requirement will reduce metallic HAP
from the stationary engine emissions.
Comment: Multiple commenters were
concerned with how EPA set the MACT
floor for the proposed rule. Several
commenters said that EPA has not
considered variability in setting the
MACT floor for the proposed rule. A
commenter cited the recent Brick MACT
ruling which indicated that ‘‘floors may
legitimately account for variability [in
the best performing sources that are the
MACT floor basis] because ‘‘each
[source] must meet the [specified]
standard every day and under all
operating conditions.’’ The commenters
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9660
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
stated EPA’s data set is not sufficient in
covering variability. One commenter
noted that the Courts have been critical
of EPA’s process for setting minimum
allowable emission limits. The
commenter stated that EPA set the
emission limits by averaging the best 12
percent of all performance tests for each
subcategory, but did not consider
operational variations of the units. The
commenter recommended that EPA set
emission limits at the emissions level
that is actually achieved under the
worst reasonably foreseeable
circumstances for the best performing
12 percent as allowed by the Courts in
the Cement Kiln MACT and Brick Kiln
MACT decisions.
Multiple commenters suggested that
EPA should consider a scenario under
which lower temperatures and reduced
catalyst efficiencies may occur due to
reduced engine speed or load, resulting
in lower temperatures and consider an
alternative work practice under section
112(h) of the CAA for the situation. Two
commenters noted that the emission
standards in the proposed rule apply at
all times, but that there is no data or
information in the rulemaking docket
that supports the proposed limits at low
loads or at operating conditions other
than high load. The commenters
expressed that EPA should provide data
and analysis that supports requiring
emission limits to be met at all times.
Also, for compliance at all times, the
commenter asked what averaging times
apply.
Response: EPA agrees that emissions
variability should be better analyzed
and has included a revised approach to
variability in the MACT floor analysis.
The final emission standards are based
on test data collected from stationary
engines produced by different engine
manufacturers, operating at various
loads and other conditions, and located
in various types of service and
locations. The engines range in size
from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The data
includes engines operating at loads from
25–100 percent. To the extent
commenters believed further data would
have beneficial to EPA, EPA must make
its determinations based on the
information available to it. EPA asked
for further data, and EPA did receive
further data following the proposal,
which led to changes in the final
regulations. For engines operating at
reduced speed or loads resulting in a
reduced exhaust temperature, EPA
believes that numerical emission
requirements are still appropriate and
there is no justification to only require
work practice standards during these
situations. We do not believe that the
provisions of section 112(h) of the CAA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
are met (except as discussed elsewhere
with regard to periods of start-up,
emergency engines, and engines below
100 HP) because testing is not
economically and technologically
impractical and the emissions can be
readily routed through a conveyance for
purposes of emission testing. EPA
believes that the final emission
standards will be achievable at all times
covered by the standards and will
reflect the numerous engine models and
operating scenarios that can be expected
from stationary engines.
Regarding the comment asking about
the averaging times that apply, EPA has
clarified in the final rule that the
emission standards are based on the
average of three one-hour runs.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern with the proposed
limits for emergency engines at both
area and major sources. Numerous
commenters stated that EPA should
adopt management practices for
emergency engines at area sources and
not require emission limits from these
engines. Commenters stated that
emergency engines need special
consideration, due to minimal
operation, and the commenters said that
EPA should apply section 112(h) of the
CAA for emergency engines at major
sources because of this limited
operation. Several commenters
recommended that emergency engines
be subject to only work practice
standards that limit the number of hours
allowed for operation during nonemergency events.
Several commenters recommended
that EPA require management practices
rather than a numerical emission limit
for emergency diesel generators greater
than 500 HP at area sources. The
commenters suggested that such
management practices could replace the
existing proposed emission standard
requirements for emergency CI engines
greater than 500 HP. The commenters
stated that the proposed rule and related
docket indicates that CI emergency
diesel engines can achieve a 40 ppmvd
CO emission standard for both normal
operations and startup or malfunction
periods without add-on technology,
which the commenters did not believe
was correct. The commenters said the
proposed rulemaking does not provide
any basis for the proposed standards for
emergency engines of this size range,
and the GACT determination has not
been properly established for these
engines. In particular, according to the
commenters, subsection 1 of section
IV.B. of the proposed rule, which is
cited in subsection 2 as the basis for the
area source standards for large CI
engines, does not appear to include any
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
discussion of emission controls for
emergency CI engines greater than 500
HP. In the absence of such justification,
the commenters state that the MACT
floor for these large engines is no
controls. The commenter acknowledged
that such a no control argument may not
be acceptable under the MACT because
of the Brick MACT court case, but the
commenters stated that there is no such
limitation in making GACT
determinations. The commenter was
concerned that establishing an emission
standard for large emergency CI engines
would establish requirements for the
installation of add-on controls for some,
if not most of the sources in that
category. EPA needs to conduct a
regulatory analysis and assessment of
the costs of these controls. The
commenter gave an example of the
impact of an emission limit and the
impact of installing controls on one of
his units. The commenter concluded
that because of the unit’s limited
operation, an oxidation catalyst control
will have limited, if any, control
effectiveness in actual use.
The commenters said that despite
EPA’s claims that the agency is not
requiring performance tests of
emergency engines, major sources with
existing emergency engines appear to
have an implicit testing requirement to
demonstrate that they comply with
concentration limits. Such testing could
significantly increase the time the
typical emergency engine would be
used in year and impose additional
environmental impact and costs. The
commenters said EPA needs to resolve
the conflict between the preamble and
the regulatory language and replace the
emission limits for emergency engines
with work practices. The commenters
raised similar concerns about the
apparent requirement for performance
testing of emergency RICE due to
ambiguous rule language and said it
should be clarified to explicitly state
that such testing is not required. The
commenter said the rule would require
not only initial performance testing, but
testing every 3 years. Because engine
operation for performance testing would
likely exceed typical operation for
operational testing and maintenance,
these testing requirements would result
in increased operation of the engine
with a corresponding significant
increase in operating costs and
emissions of other pollutants such as
NOX. The commenters said emergency
engines are used only during
emergencies, other than short (less than
one-half hour) weekly tests to assure the
engines will perform. According to the
commenter, performance tests (initial or
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
every 3 years) consisting of three 1-hour
runs typically cost about $10,000 each
and are not justified for limited use
engines, the tests alone would add
substantially to the fuel use of these
engines are result in additional and
unnecessary emissions and work
practice standards under section 112(h)
are more appropriate due to
‘‘technological and economic
limitations.’’
Response: EPA reviewed the
information submitted by the
commenters and determined that it
would be appropriate to require
management practices for all emergency
stationary CI engines at area sources.
Because these engines are typically used
only a few number of hours per year, the
costs of emission control and the costs
of emission testing are not warranted
when compared to the emission
reductions that would be achieved. The
proposed numeric emission levels are
not GACT for emergency engines at area
sources. Such engines rarely if ever use
the type of emission controls that might
have been necessary for many engines to
meet the numeric standard, and such
engines are rarely if ever subjected to
emissions testing. Therefore, EPA
determined that GACT for all stationary
emergency engines at area sources is the
use of management practices.
EPA also analyzed the types of
engines that were included in the area
source category listing for stationary
RICE. As a result of this analysis, EPA
determined that emissions from existing
stationary emergency engines located at
residential, commercial, and
institutional facilities that are area
sources of HAP were not included in the
1990 baseline emissions inventory that
was used as the basis for the listing of
source categories needed to ensure that
90 percent of area source emissions are
regulated. Existing stationary emergency
engines located at residential,
commercial, and institutional facilities
that are area sources are therefore not
subject to this regulation.
For stationary emergency engines at
major sources, EPA determined that it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard because the
application of measurement
methodology to this class of engines is
impracticable due to technological and
economic limitations. A more detailed
discussion of this determination can be
found in the memorandum entitled
‘‘MACT Floor Determination for Existing
Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less
Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major
Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area
Sources.’’ EPA determined that it is
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
9661
impracticable to test stationary CI
emergency engines using the test
procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ
because using these procedures would
increase the required number of hours
of operation of the engine beyond the
routinely scheduled reliability testing
and maintenance operation, thereby
increasing emissions. While emergency
engines have periods of operation for
scheduled maintenance and reliability
testing, those periods are usually several
hours shorter than the number of hours
that would be required to run the
necessary emissions tests under subpart
ZZZZ. CARB conducted a survey of
stationary emergency diesel engines in
2002 2 to determine the average number
of hours that stationary emergency
diesel engines operate. The average
hours of operation for maintenance and
testing were 22 hours per year, which is
less than two hours per month. For the
engines that CARB surveyed, 86 percent
operated less than 30 hours/year for
testing and maintenance. Thirty percent
operated less than 10 hours/year.
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) codes require that stationary
diesel engines that are used for
emergency purposes are run 30 minutes
per week (27 hours per year) for
maintenance and testing purposes. It is
impracticable to test emergency
stationary engines as a result of
emergency operation because
emergencies are unplanned events and
implementation of the test procedures
specified in subpart ZZZZ require
advance planning before tests are
conducted. In an emergency, the owner/
operator does not have the advance
planning time necessary to implement
subpart ZZZZ. It is also impracticable to
test stationary CI emergency engines at
major sources because of the large
population of these engines. EPA
estimates that there are over 200,000
existing stationary CI engines from 100–
500 HP at major sources that are subject
to this rulemaking. There are only
approximately 300–400 testing firms
and these stationary engines are not the
only sources that are required to be
tested, so if testing were required for
these engines, it would take many years
to test all of these engines. The cost for
testing all of these engines would also
be approximately $200 million, which
would be unreasonable.
EPA expects that these changes from
the proposed rule address the concerns
expressed by the commenters about the
requirements for stationary emergency
CI engines. Regarding the comments
pertaining to performance testing for
emergency engines, EPA did not intend
for the rule to require performance
testing for emergency engines. The final
rule does not contain any performance
testing requirements for emergency
engines.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the standard require
CDPF or a combination of oxidation
catalysts and CDPF for new or existing
non-emergency diesel RICE. The
commenter stated that EPA’s proposal
calls for oxidation catalysts on nonemergency CI engines, which EPA
reports will result in a 90 percent
reduction in CO and 30 percent
reduction in PM, whereas CDPF would
result in greater reductions in PM (90
percent reductions or greater).
Another commenter reported that it
had conducted risk assessment
evaluations for diesel particulate
emissions from non-emergency diesel
engines and found that the diesel
particulate emissions from nonemergency diesel engines and found
that the diesel particulate emissions
often create a significant cancer risk
even when there is a 30 percent PM
reduction. The commenter
recommended that EPA base standards
on CDPF or a combination of oxidation
catalyst and CDPF, for existing and new
non-emergency diesel engines.
Response: The standards that EPA
proposed and that EPA is finalizing do
not require a particular control
technology. For the proposed rule,
EPA’s beyond-the-floor analysis resulted
in standards that were based on the use
of oxidation catalyst control for
stationary non-emergency diesel engines
above 300 HP; EPA has made the same
determination for the beyond-the-floor
standards in the final rule. EPA
determined that the MACT standards
should be based on oxidation catalyst
rather than CDPF because we do not
have any data that shows that CDPFs get
greater reductions of HAP than
oxidation catalysts on stationary
engines, and CDPFs are approximately
four times as costly as oxidation
catalysts.3 EPA also has concerns
regarding the technical feasibility of
CDPFs for existing stationary diesel
engines. Many existing diesel engines
are not electronically controlled, and
PM emissions from older engines are
often too high for efficient operation of
2 California Air Resources Board Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed
Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Stationary Compression Ignition Engines.
Stationary Source Division, Emissions Assessment
Branch. September 2003.
3 California Air Resources Board Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed
Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Stationary Compression Ignition Engines.
Stationary Source Division, Emissions Assessment
Branch. September 2003.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9662
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a CDPF. Further, engine exhaust
temperatures are often not high enough
for regeneration of the CDPF filter
substrate. EPA notes that owners and
operators are free to choose whichever
control technology, which could be
oxidation catalyst or CDPF, as long as
they meet the final standards. EPA is
not addressing new diesel engines in
this rulemaking.
Comment: A few commenters were
concerned about requirements that
might apply to engines that startup
turbines. Four commenters suggested
that RICE used to startup combustion
turbines be exempt from the proposed
rule, or deemed to fall under the
‘‘emergency’’ definition in 40 CFR
§ 63.6675. One commenter explained
that turbine RICE only run for a few
minutes to get the unit started and the
total fuel consumption is not significant.
One commenter was concerned that the
short run-time during each operation
may not be long enough to get the filter
up to its design temperature for
achievement of its removal efficiency
(and note that EPA discusses it in the
preamble) or that a filter may require
additional run time for regeneration.
The commenter further noted that the
additional run-time required by the 3
year testing requirement could outstrip
the run-time needed to support these
combustion turbine peaking unit
starting devices just for compliance with
the RICE rule. The commenter noted
that increased consumption of fuel for
rule compliance would be wasting the
natural resource and adding emissions
for no measurable reduction being
gained by the rule. Two commenters
noted that every major power plant in
the United States is required to have
black start capability, which typically
involves a small combustion turbine
equipped with a diesel engine used for
startup of the turbine. According to the
commenter, the diesel starting engine,
rated less than 500 HP, generally
operates less than 10 minutes per
combustion turbine start. The
commenter indicated that the majority
of black start units only operate during
emergencies or unusually high demand
days, and that a review of the
commenter’s company’s operating data
determined that seven black start units
in the system averaged 32 starts per year
(which equates to less than 6 hours of
operation per year, although some
limited additional operation may occur
as a result of routine maintenance and
readiness testing).
Response: In the final rule EPA has
required that stationary engines used to
startup combustion turbines meet work
practice standards. EPA finds that the
short time of operation for these engines
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
of operator-defined maintenance plans
to greatly reduce cost and allow
operators to optimize maintenance for
each type of engine.
One of these commenters added that
current industry engine maintenance
programs are driven by tried-and-true
practices and since these practices
effectively keep the engines running,
they allow the products of the members
of the commenter’s organization to go to
market. The commenter stated that
additional, burdensome, frequent, and
time-consuming maintenance
requirements will cause the members of
the commenter’s organization to morefrequently shut down engines and thus
shut down production.
Two commenters said that if EPA
keeps the management practices as
proposed, the frequencies associated
with conducting engine maintenance
C. Management Practices
should be revised to be commensurate
Comment: Several commenters did
with today’s practices. The commenter
not agree with the specific management
believes the maintenance practices, as
practices that EPA has proposed in the
proposed, are significantly burdensome
rule for area sources or recommended
and lack basis. According to the
different maintenance practices.
commenters, EPA should replace the
According to the commenters, the
maintenance frequency in the proposed maintenance hour intervals with
company recommended performancerule exceeds current practices or is not
supported in the proposed rule. Several based maintenance practices to be
documented in an operator-defined
commenters agreed that management
maintenance plan consistent with
practices are appropriate for the proper
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
operation of the engines and is a
JJJJ.
reasonable means to reduce HAP
One commenter stated that most of
emissions, however, did not agree with
the engine manufacturers for the
the specific maintenance practices
engines in the oil and gas industry
proposed by EPA. Numerous
recommend oil changes on a monthly
commenters recommended that EPA
allow owners/operators to follow engine schedule. The commenter also indicated
that it is common practice to
manufacturers’ recommended practices
periodically sample and test the engine
or the owners/operators own siteoil to see if the oil properties are
specific maintenance plan.
sufficient to extend this time period
One commenter pointed out that
between oil changes. According to the
operators have a direct interest in
maintaining engine oil, hoses, and belts, commenter, this testing has shown in
many cases that the oil change interval
so the engine runs reliably, but the
can be extended without any
appropriate frequency for these
detrimental effects on the engine, which
maintenance practices are specific to
allows industry to maximize
engine design and are not ‘‘one size fits
all.’’ Ten commenters recommended that efficiencies, minimize oil usage, reduce
EPA revise fixed maintenance (one-size- waste, and streamline operations with
no negative impacts to the engine or
fits-all) requirements to maintenance
emissions.
plans. The commenters stated that,
One commenter expressed that
while fixed maintenance intervals work
inspection of hoses and belts has no
well for new mass produced engines
similar to those in automobiles, they are impact on HAP emissions. The
commenter expressed that, generally, it
inappropriate for the wide variety of
existing engines used in the oil and gas, agreed that performing maintenance on
engines will help to reduce HAP
agriculture, and power generation
emissions, but that while inspecting
industries across the nation. The
belts and hoses is an important part of
commenters pointed out that EPA
general engine maintenance (and most
allows the use of operator-defined
sources likely conduct regular
maintenance plans that are ‘‘consistent
inspections of their engines), such
with good air pollution control practice
for minimizing emissions’’ to be used in inspections have no effect on emissions
and should be removed from the
other portions of this same rule, and
proposed rule.
asserted that EPA should allow the use
(10–15 minutes per start) makes
application of measurement
methodology for these engines using the
required procedures, which require
continuous hours of operation,
impracticable. Requiring numerical
emission standards for these engines
would actually require substantially
longer operation than would occur
normally in use, leading to greater
emissions and greater costs. EPA also
agrees with the commenters that it
would not be appropriate to set
emission limits that are based on the use
of aftertreatment control for the
subcategory of stationary CI engines that
are used to startup combustion turbines.
Oxidation catalyst control would not be
effective for these engines due to their
short time of operation (10–15 minutes
per start).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Response: EPA proposed to require
specific management practices for
certain engines, primarily for smaller
existing stationary engines at area
sources where EPA thought that add-on
controls were not GACT. EPA indicated
at proposal that the management
practices specified in the proposal
reflected GACT and that such practices
would provide a reasonable level of
control, while at the same time ensuring
that the burden on particularly small
businesses and individual owners and
operators would be minimized. EPA
asked for comment on the proposed
management practices and received
comments on the proposal from
industry.
EPA agrees with the commenters that
it is difficult to adopt a set of
management practices that are
appropriate for all types of stationary
engines. Regardless, EPA must
promulgate emission standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(5) for all
engines at area sources covered by the
final rule. EPA still believes that a
management practice approach reflects
GACT for emergency engines and
smaller engines at area sources. These
management practices represent what is
generally available among such engines
to reduce HAP, and the practices will
ensure that emissions are minimized
and engines are properly operated. EPA
does not agree with the commenters that
it would be appropriate to simply
specify that owners and operators
follow the manufacturer’s recommended
maintenance practices for the engine.
EPA cannot delegate to manufacturers
the final decision regarding the proper
management practices required by
section 112(d). To address the
comments that there may be special and
unique operating situations where the
management practices in the rule may
not be appropriate, for example engines
using a synthetic lubricant, EPA notes
that owners/operators may work with
State permitting authorities pursuant to
40 CFR subpart E (‘‘Approval of State
Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities’’) for approval of alternative
management practices for their engines.
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of
the CAA, which authorizes EPA to
approve alternative State/local/Tribal
HAP standards or programs when such
requirements are demonstrated to be no
less stringent than EPA promulgated
standards.
The management practices EPA
proposed for stationary engines greater
than 50 HP included changing the oil
and filter every 500 hours, replacing the
spark plugs every 1,000 hours, and
inspecting all hoses and belts every 500
hours and replacing as necessary. For
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
engines less than 50 HP, EPA proposed
to require that these engines change the
oil and filter every 200 hours, replace
spark plugs every 500 hours, and
inspect all hoses and belts every 500
hours and replace as necessary.
EPA agrees that there is a wide range
of recommended maintenance
procedures, but EPA must promulgate
specific requirements pursuant to
section 112(d) for this source category.
Based on the different suggested
maintenance recommendations EPA has
reviewed, maintenance requirements
appear to vary depending on whether
the engine is used for standby,
intermittent, or continuous operation.
Maintenance is also dependent on the
engine application, design, and model.
Taking into consideration the
information received from commenters
on the proposed maintenance practices
for oil and filter changes and carefully
reviewing engine manufacturer
recommended maintenance procedures,
EPA has determined that for stationary
non-emergency engines below 300 HP,
GACT will require the oil and filter to
be changed every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes
first, which reflects the management
practices that are generally available.
For stationary emergency engines, the
final rule requires the oil and filter to be
changed every 500 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first. EPA
notes that in the final rule it has
clarified that spark plug changes are not
required for stationary diesel engines
since diesel engines do not use spark
plugs. EPA also determined that it
would be appropriate to include the
option to use an oil analysis program in
the final rule.
EPA does not agree with the
comments that inspecting belts and
hoses has no impact on emissions.
Ensuring that the engine is properly
operated and maintained will help
minimize the HAP emissions from the
engine. Properly maintained belts and
hoses allow the engine to operate at
maximum efficiency. Hoses are
generally used to move coolant through
the engine to prevent the engine from
overheating. Overheating of the engine
can cause a malfunction in the
combustion process, and may also burn
the engine oil in the combustion
chamber. Both of these conditions may
increase pollutant emissions from the
engine. Belts are commonly used for
electrical generation and engine timing,
and if worn or broken can cause damage
to the engine and increase emissions.
Therefore, EPA has required
management practices that reflect GACT
and that, in EPA’s view, will ensure the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9663
proper operation and maintenance of
the engine.
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
Comment: Several commenters
expressed serious concern over the
proposed emission standards for periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM). The commenters state that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
Columbia Circuit vacated the SSM
exemption in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A
on December 19, 2008, and the decision
requires the Agency to implement
standards that apply at all times,
including during SSM periods.
Numerous commenters thought the
quick response to the December 2008
Court decision on the SSM issue is
premature and recommended that EPA
wait for a final decision before
incorporate elements from this case.
Numerous commenters are of the
opinion that EPA has not provided a
technical basis for its establishment of
SSM limits and that any SSM limits
should be replaced with work practice
standards and disagreed with the
decision to include limits for SSM
periods. In addition, several
commenters said that emissions during
SSM events cannot be measured and
therefore cannot be confirmed and
limits are not enforceable. One
commenter recommended that EPA
require a SSM plan similar to the SSM
plan currently required under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The commenter
also pointed out that 40 CFR 63.6650(b)
in the existing rule requires operators to
operate and maintain their equipment in
a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices at all times,
including periods of SSM. The
commenter believed that this
requirement in conjunction with a SSM
plan will achieve the same goals as the
proposed rules in a much more cost
effective and logical manner.
Many commenters recommended that
EPA consider other alternatives to
implement during SSM periods, such as
possibly requiring work practice
standards, which the commenters
believe is the most reasonable approach
and is justified under the CAA.
Commenters believed that work practice
standards that minimize the emissions
during SSM periods is the most
practical method of keeping HAP
emissions from engines as low as
possible.
Several commenters said that there is
no method to determine compliance
during SSM periods. The commenters
said that it will be difficult or
impossible to design a test program to
describe emissions during SSM events,
e.g., the commenter is not sure how a
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9664
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
malfunction would be defined
considering the unexpected and
anomalous nature of the event.
Therefore, emissions during these
periods cannot be confirmed, the
commenters said. Similarly,
commenters believed that it is not
reasonable to set numerical limits
during startup because there are no
available or repeatable test methods or
procedures for measuring emissions
during startup or malfunction, plus
there is no prescribed definition of what
constitutes startup of an engine, which
can vary significantly for a number of
reasons such as engine and catalyst
type, fuel, climatic conditions,
application and load.
One commenter said that there are no
viable measurement methods available
to measure CO, formaldehyde or VOC
during transient operation and a review
conducted by the commenter of Table 4
in the proposed rule shows the
inconsistencies related to transient
measurement acceptability with respect
to stack gas moisture and flow rate,
delays in the actual response of
analyzers, issues in obtaining an
accurate measurement during a
transient test due to an axial diffusion
function in long gaseous emissions
sample lines, and field gaseous emission
measurements require stack traverse as
well for the emissions under
measurement, per EPA Methods 7, 10,
25, etc., which eliminates the possibility
of getting an accurate measurement
during transient events such as a
startup.
One commenter claimed that issuance
of numerical limits for SSM based on
the emissions of the ‘‘best controlled
sources prior to full warm up of the
catalytic control’’ fails to consider
emissions during malfunction of the
engines themselves. The commenter
asserts that while EPA appropriately
determined that during a control device
malfunction, the floor and standard
cannot be set assuming operation of the
control device, EPA errs in limiting its
analysis solely to operation of the
controls since emissions can increase as
a result of engine malfunctions as well.
The commenter noted that its
experience is consistent with EPA’s
statements that emissions during an
engine malfunction may increase due to
the effects on exhaust temperatures and
composition. The commenter concluded
that emission limits would need to be
based on the emissions level from the
best performing sources without control
while the engine is malfunctioning. One
commenter added that it does not make
sense to set any numerical standards
during a malfunction of an engine
because inherent in the concept of a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
malfunction is that emissions will be
malfunctioning as well. It is also not
logical to apply the concept of ‘‘best
performing’’ malfunctioning engine, the
commenter said. For these reasons, it is
unreasonable for EPA to promulgate
numerical emission limits for periods of
malfunction, in the commenter’s
opinion. Emission testing for
malfunctions would be near impossible
to conduct given the sporadic and
unpredictable nature of the events, the
commenter said. The commenter said
that the nature of malfunctions means it
is not feasible to predict or simulate
emissions that occur during periods of
malfunctions. The commenter asserted
that with respect to engines, it is not
technologically or economically feasible
to apply measurement methodology for
the emissions during SSM periods and
further, that it is unreasonable for the
Agency in the face of the lack of
accurate emission measurements to
simply set the standard at the level for
normal operations (e.g., for sources not
using a control device). The commenter
stated that this situation is precisely the
circumstance in which Congress
envisioned that a work practice
standard would be established, and
urged EPA to adopt a work practice
standard applicable to malfunction and
startup periods for engines consistent
with section 112(h) of the CAA and not
to apply the numerical limits for normal
operations.
One commenter stated that EPA
solicited comment on the level of
specificity needed to define the periods
of startup and malfunction. The
commenter believes the responses differ
based on whether the event is a startup
or malfunction. The commenter noted
that startup of an engine begins with the
start of fuel flow to the engine and ends
when the engine has achieved normal
operating temperature and air to fuel
flows as indicated by the manufacturers’
specifications, and while the initiation
of a startup is predictable, its conclusion
is not time-determined, but
operationally-determined. The
commenter noted where a catalyst is
used to control emissions; startup does
not end until the required catalyst bed
temperature has been achieved,
however, this may happen before the
engine air and fuel flows are normal and
thus catalyst bed temperature is not the
exclusive criterion that defines the end
of the startup period. The commenter
noted that the start of the malfunction
should be defined as when the normal
operation emission limit is exceeded
and the end of the malfunction should
be set as when the normal operation
emission limit is restored or the engine
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is shutdown. The commenter noted that
malfunctions often require shutdown to
address, but such shutdowns can be
delayed because immediate engine
shutdown would cause other upsets.
Therefore, the commenter believes it
would not be reasonable to set any
specific time limits on either startup or
malfunction periods, because their
duration can be a function of
operational need. Similarly, one
commenter disagreed that it would be
appropriate to set a specific limit on the
time allowed for startup because not all
engines experience the same type of
startup and malfunction. The length of
startup will depend on many factors
including engine type, size, fuel type
and duty cycle, plus the frequency of
required startups will also vary greatly
among engines because some engines
are only used for intermittent operation.
Some commenters thought that
limiting the engine startup time is a
reasonable method to limit emissions.
The commenter added that the most
effective way to control emissions
during startup for engines with catalysts
is to limit the amount of time it takes
to warm up the exhaust to initialize the
catalyzation process and startup time
can be easily monitored. The
commenter added that the time to be
monitored at startup be defined as from
the initial engine in-cylinder
combustion, corresponding with
continuous operation, up to the point
that a defined catalyst inlet temperature
is reached. The commenter also
recommended that owners/operators be
able to request additional startup time if
necessary in special circumstances, e.g.,
in extremely cold climates or where
sufficient load cannot be reached within
30 minutes. The commenters
recommended a limit of one hour for
startup and 30 minutes for shutdown.
The rule should not include a time limit
for malfunctions, as the length of time
during which an engine will be out of
compliance would depend on the type
of malfunction, the commenters said.
The commenters suggested that each
affected source would be required to
prepare a SSM plan, which would have
to address appropriate actions and time
limits for malfunctions. The commenter
suggested that for engine startups, the
work practice should require loading
the engine to normal operating load as
soon as practicable so that the catalytic
controls are within operating range as
soon as practicable
The commenters also objected to
EPA’s proposed second option. The
commenter said the data are apparently
derived from the best controlled engines
not using catalytic controls. The
commenter said that emissions data
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
from steady-state operation of
uncontrolled engines does not account
for the cooler engine and fuel
temperature conditions during startup.
Nor does the second option properly
account for malfunctions.
One commenter proposed that EPA
treat SSM emissions as de minimis,
using the DC Circuit rationale in
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. The
commenter noted that catalyst systems
do not perform at low temperatures, and
the SSM periods vary in duration and
intensity, which can significantly
impact actual emissions profiles. The
commenter provided examples of why
an assumption that SSM emissions are
identical to normal stable operations
emissions is erroneous and a gross oversimplification of unit operations.
Response: EPA received extensive
comments on the proposed
requirements applicable to existing
stationary engines during SSM.
Consistent with the recent Court
decision that vacated the exemption in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019),
EPA has established standards in this
rule that apply at all times. EPA
disagrees with those comments
suggesting that EPA was premature in
proposing standards during periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. The
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued its
opinion vacating the SSM exemption in
December 2008, and we appropriately
accounted for that decision in proposing
the rule in February 2009. EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to promulgate
final rules that are inconsistent with the
decision of the DC Circuit.
EPA has determined that the
emissions from stationary CI engines
during startup are significantly different
than the emissions during normal
operation. During startup, incomplete
combustion of the diesel fuel causes
variations in the pollutant
concentrations and fluctuations in the
flow rate of the exhaust gas. Incomplete
combustion is due to cold areas of the
cylinder walls that cause the
temperature to be too low for efficient
combustion. As the engine continues to
operate, these cold regions begin to heat
up and allow for more complete
combustion of the diesel fuel and
stabilization of the exhaust flow rate
and pollutant concentrations. In
addition, the engine experiences
extreme transient conditions during
startup, including variations in speed
and load, poor atomization of the fuel
injection, which leads to variable engine
and engine exhaust temperatures,
variable exhaust gas flow rates, and
variable diluent pollutant concentration.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Note for example the brief time spent at
different load conditions as shown in
Figure 1 of the attachment to EMA’s
letter dated February 17, 2009 (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0019), which
illustrates the transient nature of the
engine startup phase. Other factors that
cause emissions to be higher during
startup, including for engines that are
not equipped with oxidation catalyst,
are a higher propensity for engine
misfire and poorer atomization of the
fuel spray during startup. Aftertreatment technologies like oxidation
catalysts and CDPFs must also reach a
threshold temperature in order to
reduce emissions effectively. In the
February 17, 2009, EMA letter, EMA
provided various graphs illustrating
sample engine startup profiles and
graphs demonstrating the effect of
engine exhaust temperature on catalyst
efficiency. Figure 6 of the attachment to
EMA’s letter (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0708–0019.1) shows how the CO
efficiency is a function of the catalyst
inlet temperature.
EPA has evaluated the criteria in
section 112(h) and carefully considered
and reviewed the comments on this
issue. EPA has determined that it is not
feasible to prescribe a numerical
emission standard for stationary CI
engines during periods of startup
because the application of measurement
methodology to these engines is not
practicable due to the technological and
economic limitations described below.
EPA test methods (e.g., 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, Methods 2, 3A, 4, and
10) do not respond adequately to the
relatively short term and highly variable
exhaust gas characteristics occurring
during these periods. The innate and
substantial changes in the engine
operations during startup operations
create rapid variations in exhaust gas
flow rate as well as changes in both
pollutant and diluent gas
concentrations. Correlating the exhaust
gas flow rates and the gas components
concentration data for each fraction of
time over the entire period of a startup
operation is necessary to apportion the
values appropriately and to determine
representative average emissions
concentrations or total mass emissions
rate.
Measuring flow and concentration
data in the types of rapidly changing
exhaust gas conditions characteristic of
stationary CI engines is unachievable
with current technologies applicable to
stack emissions testing. For example,
application of Method 2 to measure
stack flow rate requires collecting data
for velocity pressure and stack
temperature at each of 12 traverse points
and a corresponding stack moisture and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9665
oxygen concentration (for molecular
weight determination). This traverse
operation requires about 30 minutes to
complete to produce a single value for
the test period, which is approximately
the same amount of time as the engine
startup period. Clearly a single flow rate
value would not sufficiently represent
the variable flow conditions nor allow
appropriate apportioning of the
pollutant concentration measurements
over that same period for calculating a
representative average emissions value.
Even if the start-up period is longer than
30 minutes, the stack flow rate test
period could not be short enough to
represent the short term (e.g., minuteby-minute) result necessary for
representative emissions calculations.
These findings lead us to conclude that
correlating the flow and concentration
data as necessary to determine
appropriate proportional contributions
to the emissions rates or concentrations
in calculating representative emissions
over these short highly variable
conditions with currently available field
testing procedures is problematic for
stationary CI engines. In addition, even
were it technically feasible to measure
emissions during startups for stationary
CI engines, the cost of doing so for every
startup at every covered engine would
impose a substantial economic burden.
There are approximately 936,000
existing stationary CI engines that are
subject to this rule; the cost for testing
every one of these engines during
engine startup could be more than $1
billion.
EPA is therefore finalizing an
operational standard in lieu of a
numerical emission limit during periods
of startup in accordance with section
112(h) of the CAA. EPA is limited to the
information before it, which, of course,
includes any information provided by
the commenters. See 112(d)(3)(A). In
this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of
the information before it, including that
provided by commenters, and
determined that this standard complies
with the requirements of sections 112(d)
and 112(h). The final rule requires that
owners and operators of stationary
engines limit the startup time to 30
minutes or less. Engine startup is
defined as the time from initial start
until applied load and engine and
associated equipment reaches steady
state or normal operation. For stationary
engine with catalytic controls, engine
startup means the time from initial start
until applied load and engine and
associated equipment reaches steady
state or normal operation, including the
catalyst. EPA is also including a
requirement in the final rule to
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9666
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
minimize the engine’s time spent at idle
and minimize the engine’s startup time
at startup to a period needed for
appropriate and safe loading of the
engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after
which time the otherwise applicable
emission standards apply. As with any
work practice, CAA section 112(h)(3)
and EPA’s implementing regulations at
40 CFR 63.6(g) provide that major
sources can petition the Administrator
for approval of an alternative work
practice, which must be at least as
stringent as what is required in the
regulation.
Regarding shutdown, EPA determined
that it was not necessary to establish
different standards that would be
applicable during shutdown for
stationary CI engines. The commenters
did not provide any information that
shows emissions would be higher
during shutdown than during normal
operation. In addition, commenters are
incorrect that compliance with the
standards must be instantaneous.
Compliance with these emission
standards has always been based on the
results of testing that is conducted over
a three-hour period; EPA has made this
more explicit in this rule. Since the
shutdown period for stationary CI
engines is typically only a matter of
minutes, it is believed that even if a
shutdown occurred during the
performance test, the engine would still
be able to comply with the emission
limitation. In a letter dated February 17,
2009 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–0019),
EMA indicates that HAP emissions will
be sufficiently controlled during periods
of shutdown. EMA stated in its letter
that according to manufacturers,
emissions control equipment would
most likely continue to reduce
emissions as designed throughout the
shutdown period. According to EMA,
this is because engine emissions control
systems and equipment are, during the
start of an engine shutdown, at high
enough temperatures to control HAP
emissions and will continue to be
sufficiently high until the engine shuts
down. This trend is illustrated in the
attachment to EMA’s February 17, 2009,
letter to EPA, where EMA provided two
graphs with sample engine shutdown
profiles. Figure 2 of the attachment to
EMA’s letter (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0708–0019.1) shows catalyst
temperatures versus minutes during
engine shutdown and illustrates stable
catalyst temperatures.
In establishing the standards in this
rule, EPA has taken into account startup
periods and, for the reasons explained
above, has established different
standards for those periods. With
respect to malfunctions, EPA proposed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
two options for subcategories where the
proposed emission standard was based
on the use of catalytic controls. The first
proposed option was to have the same
standards apply during normal
operation and malfunctions. The second
proposed option was that standards
during malfunctions be based on
emissions expected from the best
controlled sources prior to the full
warm-up of the catalytic control. For
subcategories where the proposed
emission standard was not based on the
use of catalytic controls, we proposed
the same emission limitations apply
during malfunctions and periods of
normal operations. EPA is finalizing the
first option described above, which is
that the same standards apply during
normal operation and malfunctions. In
the proposed rule, EPA expressed the
view that there are different modes of
operation for any stationary source, and
that these modes generally include
startup, normal operations, shutdown,
and malfunctions. However, after
considering the issue of malfunctions
more carefully, EPA believes that
malfunctions are distinguishable from
startup, shutdown and normal
operations.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and
not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has
determined that malfunctions should
not be viewed as a distinct operating
mode and, therefore, any emissions that
occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA
section 112(d) standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. For
example, we note that Section 112 uses
the concept of ‘‘best performing’’ sources
in defining MACT, the level of
stringency that major source standards
must meet. One commenter expressed
the view that it is not logical to apply
the concept of ‘‘best performing’’ to a
source that is malfunctioning. Indeed,
the goal of best performing sources is to
operate in such a way as to avoid
malfunctions of their units. Similarly,
although standards for area sources are
not required to be set based on ‘‘best
performers,’’ we believe that what is
‘‘generally available’’ should not be
based on periods in which there is a
‘‘failure to operate.’’
Moreover, even if malfunctions were
considered a distinct operating mode,
we believe it would be impracticable to
take malfunctions into account in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
setting CAA section 112(d) standards for
stationary CI engines. As noted above,
by definition, malfunctions are sudden
and unexpected events and it would be
difficult to set a standard that takes into
account the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all
sources. Moreover, malfunctions can
vary in frequency, degree, and duration,
further complicating standard setting.
Finally, EPA believes that
malfunctions will not cause stationary
CI engines to violate the standard that
applies during normal operations.
Stationary CI engines would in most
cases shut down immediately or with
very little delay in the event of a
malfunction. Because the standard is
expressed as the average of three onehour runs, or a work or management
practice, any emissions that occur prior
to engine shutdown should not affect a
source’s ability to comply with the
standard. Commenters’ concerns
regarding compliance certifications
should not be a concern for this same
reason. This approach will also
encourage shutdowns as soon as
practicable when a malfunction that
affects emissions occurs. In the unlikely
event that a source fails to comply with
the applicable CAA section 112(d)
standards as a result of a malfunction
event, EPA would determine an
appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the
source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including
preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain
and rectify excess emissions. EPA
would also consider whether the
source’s failure to comply with the CAA
section 112(d) standard was, in fact,
‘‘sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable’’ and was not instead
‘‘caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2
(definition of malfunction).
EPA does not agree with the
commenter who said that EPA should
treat SSM emissions as de minimis. It is
doubtful whether a de minimis
exemption is even possible under
section 112(d) of the Act in these
circumstances, see National Lime Ass’n
v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 640 (DC Cir,
2000), but in any case the commenter
provides no specific information to
justify EPA making such a de minimis
finding in this instance. Given the very
narrow and specific circumstances
delineated by the court in Alabama
Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir.
1979) for making such a finding, and the
lack of specific information from the
commenter that these circumstances
exist in this instance, we do not make
a de minimis finding.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
E. Emergency Engines
Comment: Several commenters stated
that EPA’s proposed definition of
emergency is not clear as to whether it
includes emergency engines that operate
in emergency demand response (DR)
programs. The commenter believed that
the record on 40 CFR part 60, subpart
IIII, from which the proposed rule
definition was drawn, clearly indicates
that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII
definition was meant to address peak
shaving, not emergency engines
participating in emergency DR
programs. Several commenters
requested that EPA modify the proposed
definition of emergency engines to
enable engines to maintain their status
as emergency engines, even though the
engines that are used in DR programs
are part of a financial agreement and
based on the current definition would
not be considered emergency engines.
Two commenters stated that emergency
DR programs should not be confused
with economic DR programs (e.g., peak
shaving). Emergency DR programs are
initiated by the transmission system
operators when the threat of power
outages is imminent and are critical to
maintaining available power during
periods of extreme load on the electric
power infrastructure, according to the
commenters. The events are rare and
unplanned, out of the control of
emergency engine owners/operators,
and no power is supplied to the grid,
but used at the individual facility, the
commenter said. The commenter said
that emergency DR events during the
year are typically limited to no longer
than 2 to 6 hours per event, with the
number of events per year capped by the
regional power pool. The commenter
believed that, by establishing a
subcategory for generators that serve
facilities participating in a DR program
and that only operate 200 hrs/yr,
including any hours operated for
maintenance purposes, EPA could
require maintenance practices, and
remove any disincentive that may be
created over the increased
administrative burden and potential
post-combustion control retrofit costs if
their emergency stationary RICE would
be required to be re-characterized as
‘‘non-emergency’’ in order to participate
in DR programs. The commenter
suggested that a 100 hour operating
limit could also be considered as an
alternative. Three commenters (stated
that they receive many benefits from
their participation in the local DR
program, and that they use emergency
DR events and tests events to replace
some of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Organizations’ mandated hospital
generator tests. According to the
commenters the costs that they would
have to absorb to meet the proposed
emission limits would be prohibitive
and that to require facilities to meet
rigid emission limits with very little
reduction in emissions is not
encouraged. Emergency engines are
used throughout the U.S. and provide
vital safety requirements at hospitals
and healthcare institutions, the
commenters said. Commenters stated
that emergency engines participating in
emergency DR programs provide a
critical service in stabilizing the electric
grid on the rare occasions when the grid
is about to fail. Many States endorse the
use of emergency engines participating
in emergency DR programs, according to
commenter 82. Two commenters cited
various DR programs in the New
England area that existing engines
participate in. A commenter provided
detailed discussion of several
emergency DR programs across the
country, including States in New
England, the Mid Atlantic and Midwest,
and the South, that are supportive of
using emergency engines as part of their
emergency DR programs, and that
accommodate operation of these engines
through various definitions of
emergency, or through permitting. The
commenter concluded that it is very
important that EPA not adopt rules that
conflict with how much of the U.S.
handles emergency DR.
Response: EPA agrees that it would be
appropriate to allow emergency engines
to operate as part of emergency demand
response programs for a limited number
of hours of operation per year in
situations where grid failure and a
blackout are imminent. In the final rule,
EPA has revised the requirements for
emergency engines to reflect this.
F. Emissions Data
Comment: Multiple commenters
believe that the emissions data for
engines is not adequate to conduct an
appropriate MACT floor analysis. EPA
should collect additional data and redo
the MACT floor analysis, according to
numerous commenters. The
commenters also stated that EPA did not
consider emissions variability in setting
the MACT floor.
Commenters stated that the MACT
floors should not be based on data using
single measurements, when three
measurements are a standard
requirement for demonstrating
compliance. In the absence of multiple
measurements, outliers and erroneous
errors cannot be caught, according to the
commenters.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9667
The commenters said that EPA should
use data from units of similar size to set
standards for sources of the same size,
e.g., emissions from a large engine
should not be used to set standards for
a 100 HP engine unless EPA can
demonstrate that such an assumption is
justified. The commenters are
concerned that the data EPA has used
for the MACT floor analysis is not
representative of the current population
of engines.
Commenters criticized the
applicability and use of the RICE
emissions database as representative of
the engines being regulated. One
commenter noted that the 40 ppmvd
numerical emissions limit for CO
appears to be based on 10 tests of only
one make and model of engine
(Caterpillar, Model No. 3508) over a
3-day period in the Research and
Development Laboratory of CSU in 1999
(Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–
0006). The commenter states that
according to the engine population data
presented in the impacts document in
the docket (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0798–0028) the promulgated rule
would impose limits on more than
50,000 CI engines. The commenter
believed that basing the limit on such a
small and unrepresentative sample
jeopardizes the accuracy of any
assumptions made about the operational
conditions or performance of the
regulated population as well as the
accuracy of any cost of compliance
estimates, and leads to an
underestimation of the impact of the
rule.
Response: Section 112(d)(3) of the
CAA requires EPA to set MACT
standards based on the test data that is
available to the Agency and this is what
EPA did at proposal. EPA recognizes
that it had limited emissions test data at
the time it developed the proposed rule.
However, EPA notes that it used the
data that was available at the time of
proposal. EPA requested additional test
data to supplement the emissions
database during the development of
previous rules for stationary engines
and also in an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for this rule and
did not receive any data. EPA again
requested additional test data during the
comment period for the current engine
rulemaking and made an additional
effort post-proposal to reach out to
industry and other sources in order to
supplement the existing emission data
set. EPA did receive additional
emissions data for stationary CI engines
during the post-proposal period for this
rulemaking. The additional data include
tests for 11 stationary engines, ranging
in size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9668
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
inclusion of this additional data in the
MACT floor analysis for the final rule
addresses the commenters’ concerns
about using data for one large engine to
set the MACT floor for smaller engines.
EPA understands the concerns of
commenters with regard to whether the
MACT floor analysis for the proposed
rule took emissions variability
appropriately into account. EPA took
emissions variability into account to a
greater degree when conducting the
MACT floor analysis for the final rule.
For engines where EPA had data for
multiple tests on the same engine, EPA
used the highest test run concentration
as the representative emissions for that
engine. EPA also used the lowest
percent reduction observed in
determining the percent reduction
expected from applicable aftertreatment
controls in determining beyond-thefloor MACT standards. Therefore, the
variability in emissions from the engine
was factored into the MACT floor
analysis and the beyond-the-floor
MACT analysis.
EPA does not agree that it would be
inappropriate to use data from one run
in setting MACT floors; using the
highest run from the testing takes into
account the variability of emissions.
G. Final Rule Impacts
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that the costs are not
representative of actual costs of
implementing the rule and numerous
commenters said that the proposed rule
will have a significant financial impact
on their sources. According to the
commenters, EPA has underestimated
the cost impacts of the rule by an order
of magnitude or more. Numerous
commenters indicated that EPA has
used old, faulty, and inappropriate data
on the cost of controls, testing,
recordkeeping and reporting to estimate
the economic impacts of the rule.
Commenters said that EPA should
gather current information on the cost of
controls and redo the cost calculations.
The commenters provided specific
examples of where they believe EPA has
used inappropriate cost information.
One concern expressed was that the cost
of oxidation catalyst control for diesel
engines was based on the cost of
oxidation catalyst control for gas
engines. Commenters also said that not
all existing engines have hour meters.
Commenters believed that EPA has
underestimated the total cost of this rule
by underestimating the number of
engines requiring the addition of
catalyst; assuming that catalysts can
simply be added to effectively control
existing engines; overlooking the
significant cost of field installation; and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
underestimating the complexity of and
administrative/operational burdens
added by this rule.
Several commenters provided
comments about the economic impact of
the rule on emergency units. One
commenter stated that overall the cost
per ton of HAP or CO removal would be
excessive for emergency CI engines
since emissions were well below a ton/
yr and the units use is very limited and
intermittent. Another commenter noted
that engine manufacturers do not
recommend the use of after treatment
devices for emergency engines, and that
EPA appeared to support that position
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
which states that cost per ton removal
of HAP ranged from $1 million to $2.8
million for engines larger than 500 HP
and from $3.7 million to $8.7 million for
engines between 50 and 500 HP. One
commenter said EPA does not appear to
consider any costs associated with
testing emergency engines, even though
owners may deem it prudent to test to
confirm they are meeting the standard
rather than risk an enforcement action if
the unit does not meet the standard.
Testing to comply with the 100 percent
load requirement will require owners to
purchase or rent load banks to meet the
conditions contemplated in the
standard, which can cost up to $10,000
per site. The load bank costs alone
could add up to as much as $973
million. In addition, equipment
modifications (sample ports) would be
necessary to test emissions, and EPA
has not included these costs in its
calculations.
One commenter said that the
proposed rule for existing CI engines
greater than 300 HP at area sources is
cost prohibitive for facilities with peak
shaving engines with low operating
hours. The commenter estimated that
the cost per ton of HAP removed from
these units would range from $200,000
to $1 million, similar to the cost for
emergency generators.
While reducing HAP is an important
goal, one commenter believed that the
overbroad approach taken by EPA in
subjecting all the RICE equipment in
question to the requirements proposed,
regardless of whether the equipment is
located in urban or rural areas,
particularly when considering the
Congressional intent of reducing HAP in
urban areas given the potential risks to
public health, and the imposition of
costs in excess of $528 million to reduce
13,000 tons of HAP a year (i.e., a cost
of $40,615 per ton) should be carefully
scrutinized.
One commenter noted an additional
concern with the proposed rule is the
potential impact of parasitic load
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resulting from the use of catalytic diesel
particulate filters (CDPF) and oxidation
catalysts. Some back pressure penalty is
associated with the use of both CDPF
and oxidation catalysts methods to
control HAP, the back pressure can
increase with time, which may require
regeneration of the catalyst or changing
filters. The commenter believed that for
those utilities that operate RICE with
only marginal excess capacity, addition
of either type of control could require
installation of additional RICE capacity
to maintain the needed reliability level.
The commenter noted that it will not be
possible to design around the pressure
drop for existing engines and that the
penalty should have been addressed and
included by EPA in the cost assessment
of retrofit and operation for the control
devices.
Another commenter indicated that
EPA’s estimates are low for the capital
and operating costs associated with the
use of catalytic control, and are based
on pricing data from one vendor and a
limited number of data points. The
commenter asserted that EPA’s capital
estimate and annual operating cost
estimate for catalytic controls are each
low by an order of magnitude of 2 to 3.
The commenter also stated that because
beyond-the-floor standards (which
require catalytic controls) are based on
the cost per ton of HAP removed and
EPA significantly underestimated
capital and operating costs of catalytic
controls, EPA must reanalyze the
proposed rule with better cost data to
determine when catalysts are
economically practical.
One commenter said the cost
information contained in the docket for
test costs is not representative of the
sampling costs required to comply with
the standards as proposed. Members of
the commenter’s organization indicated
that the cost per sample run using
Methods 1, 3, 4, and 10 could easily
exceed $10,000, excluding costs to
prepare for the sampling (i.e.,
scaffolding, stack extensions, etc.). In
addition to these cost considerations, as
a practical matter, there would be
significant difficulty in performing these
EPA test methods on engine exhaust.
The commenter claimed that EPA has
proposed compliance requirements that
are more stringent than GACT
requirements or management practices
and that EPA has decided to institute
MACT. However, even under MACT
EPA can consider cost and energy
impacts. The commenter disagreed with
EPA’s conclusion in the RIA that the
rule will not likely have a significant
impact on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy. The commenter said that
the proposed standards could have a
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
very detrimental impact on energy
reliability, and many units may have to
be shut down due to the cost of
compliance.
Response: EPA used the information
it had available at the time of proposal
to estimate the cost impacts associated
with the rule. This information included
cost data obtained for the development
of previous stationary engine
rulemakings, which EPA believed
would be appropriate to use for this
rulemaking. Based on the significant
number of comments received on the
proposed rule costs, EPA revisited its
cost analysis and assumptions
underlying the proposed rule and
revised that analysis and assumptions in
the final rule.
EPA has made several attempts to
obtain more current cost information,
including through an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for this rule. EPA
agrees with the commenters that it is
inappropriate to base the cost for a
diesel oxidation catalyst on the costs for
oxidation catalysts for spark ignition
engines. Therefore, EPA has based the
catalyst cost estimate in the final rule on
cost data for diesel oxidation catalysts
obtained from a CARB study. More
information on the cost estimate can be
found in the memorandum entitled
‘‘Control Costs for Existing Stationary CI
RICE.’’ The cost estimates are based on
the use of diesel oxidation catalyst
rather than CDPF because we believe
that sources will choose to use
oxidation catalyst control because they
are less costly than CDPF and achieve
similar reduction in HAP. Based on a
reanalysis of the MACT floor data and
above-the-floor options, taking
variability into account, the final rule
requires engines equipped with
catalysts to achieve 70 percent
reduction rather than the 90 percent that
was proposed.
Regarding the comment that catalysts
cannot be added to existing engines, the
commenter did not provide any
information to show what engines
would not be able to be retrofit.
Regarding the concerns expressed about
backpressure increases, the commenter
did not provide any data to support the
claim that the backpressure increases
are so high that they would severely
impact the engine output.
EPA does not agree with the claim
that the rule will put a strain on
hospitals. The stationary diesel engines
at hospitals are typically emergency
engines and EPA has determined that
emergency engines located at
institutional facilities such as hospitals
that are area sources are not part of the
listed source category and are therefore
not subject to the final rule. EPA does
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
not agree with the commenters that it is
not appropriate to require peaking units
and stationary diesel engines that are
located in rural areas to install controls.
This is discussed in more detail in the
summary of comments and responses.
EPA has specified in the final rule that
performance testing is not limited to 100
percent load, so it should not be
necessary to include the cost of a load
bank in the performance testing cost.
EPA has incorporated the costs for
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting in the cost analysis and
believes that its estimates for these costs
are appropriate. The costs for testing are
based on information from source
testing companies. As a result of the
comments on testing costs, EPA
reevaluated the estimate of how many
engines could be tested in a single day
and determined that two engines could
be tested at a facility in one day, rather
than three as was estimated in the
proposal.
Regarding the concerns expressed by
the commenters about the impact of the
rule on emergency engines, the final
rule requires existing stationary
emergency engines to meet work
practice or management practice
standards, rather than numeric emission
limitations; these work practices and
management practices do not require
that these engines be retrofit with
aftertreatment controls or be
performance tested to determine
compliance. Information provided to
EPA by engine manufacturers indicates
that most engines are already equipped
with an hour meter; therefore, EPA did
not add this cost into the rule. EPA does
not believe that the final rule will cause
owners/operators to replace their
emergency engines. The final rule
imposes work or management practices
on these engines, which EPA believes
will not be overly burdensome to
facilities and will not cause the
retirement of existing stationary
emergency engines.
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final rule is expected to reduce
total HAP emissions from stationary
RICE by 1,010 tons per year (tpy)
beginning in the year 2013 or the first
year the rule will become effective. EPA
estimates that over 900,000 stationary CI
engines will be subject to the rule.
These estimates include stationary
engines located at major and area
sources; however, not all stationary
engines are subject to numerical
emission standards. Further information
regarding the estimated reductions of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9669
the final rule can be found in the
memorandum entitled ‘‘Impacts
Associated with NESHAP for Existing
Stationary RICE,’’ which is available in
the docket.
In addition to HAP emissions
reductions, the final rule will reduce
other pollutants such as CO, PM, SOX,
and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
The final rule is expected to reduce
emissions of CO by 14,000 tpy in the
year 2013. Reductions of PM are
estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year 2013.
Emissions of VOC are estimated to be
reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year 2013.
The final rule will also reduce
emissions of SOX through the use of
ULSD. We have not quantified the SOX
reductions that would occur as a result
of engines switching to ULSD because
we are unable to estimate the number of
engines that already use ULSD and
therefore we are unable to estimate the
percentage of engines that may switch to
ULSD due to this rule. If none of the
affected engines would use ULSD
without this rule, then we estimate the
SOX reductions are 31,000 tpy in the
year 2013. If all of the affected engines
would use ULSD regardless of the rule,
then the additional SOX reductions
would be zero.
B. What are the cost impacts?
The total national capital cost for the
final rule for existing stationary RICE is
estimated to be $744 million, with a
total national annual cost of $373
million in year 2013 (the first year the
rule is implemented). Further
information regarding the estimated cost
impacts of this proposed rule can be
found in the memorandum entitled
‘‘Impacts Associated with NESHAP for
Existing Stationary CI RICE,’’ which is
available in the docket.
C. What are the benefits?
We calculated the benefits of this rule
in terms of the co-benefits associated
with reducing fine particulate matter
(PM) rather than calculating the benefits
associated with reducing hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). These PM reductions
are a consequence of the technologies
installed to reduce HAP emissions from
RICE. We estimate the monetized PM2.5
co-benefits of this final regulatory action
to be $940 million to $2.3 billion
(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) in the
fifth year (2013). The PM2.5 co-benefits
at a 7 percent discount rate are $850
million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Because
the magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is
largely driven by the concentrationresponse function for premature
mortality, we examined alternate
relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9670
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
experts. Higher and lower co-benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between
these two estimates above.4
A summary of the monetized cobenefits estimates at discount rates of 3
percent and 7 percent is in Table 4 of
this preamble.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR FINAL RICE NESHAP
[Millions of 2008$]
Emission
reductions
(tons)
Pollutant
Total monetized
co-benefits
(3% discount)
Total monetized
co-benefits
(7% discount)
Direct PM2.5 .............................................
PM2.5 Precursors:
VOC ..................................................
2,844
$910 to $2,200 ........................................
$820 to $2,000.
27,395
$33 to $82 ...............................................
$30 to $74.
Total ..........................................
........................
$940 to $2,300 ........................................
$850 to $2,100.
Note: All estimates are for the analysis year (the fifth year), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows.
All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of
precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5. We assume that all PM reductions for this rule are PM2.5 reductions. Benefits from
reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
The benefits estimates of populationlevel improvements to human health
from reductions in PM2.5 air pollution.
We generated estimates that represent
the total monetized human health cobenefits (the sum of premature mortality
and morbidity) of reducing a ton of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions.
We base the estimate of human health
co-benefits derived from the PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emission reductions on
the general approach and methodology
laid out in the Technical Support
Document that accompanied the RIA for
the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Ground-level Ozone
(NAAQS) and Fann et al. (2009).5
To generate the benefit-per-ton
estimates, we used a model to convert
emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in PM2.5 air
quality and another model to estimate
the changes in human health based on
that change in air quality. Finally, the
monetized health co-benefits were
divided by the emission reductions to
create the benefit-per-ton estimates.
Even though we assume that all fine
particles have equivalent health effects,
the benefit-per-ton estimates vary
between precursors because each ton of
precursor reduced has a different
propensity to form PM2.5. For example,
SOX has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate
than direct PM2.5 because it does not
form as much PM2.5, thus the exposure
would be lower, and the monetized
health co-benefits would be lower.
For context, it is important to note
that the magnitude of the PM benefits is
largely driven by the concentration
response function for premature
mortality. Experts have advised EPA to
consider a variety of assumptions,
including estimates based both on
empirical (epidemiological) studies and
judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty
in the relationship between PM2.5
concentrations and premature mortality.
For this final rule we cite two key
empirical studies, one based on the
American Cancer Society cohort study 6
and the extended Six Cities cohort
study.7
EPA strives to use the best available
science to support our benefits analyses.
We recognize that interpretation of the
science regarding air pollution and
health is dynamic and evolving. The
question of whether or not to assume a
threshold in calculating the co-benefits
associated with reductions in PM2.5 is
an issue that affects the benefits
calculations for many EPA rulemakings
and analyses. Due to these implications,
we solicited comment on
appropriateness of both the nothreshold and threshold model for PM
benefits analysis as part of the Portland
Cement NESHAP (May 2009). The
comment period closed on September 4,
2009, and EPA is still reviewing those
comments. Since then, EPA finalized
the Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter,8 which was
reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee. Based on EPA’s
review of the body of scientific
literature and the Integrated Science
Assessment, EPA has concluded that the
no-threshold model most adequately
portrays the relationship between fine
particles and premature mortality.
Although this document does not
necessarily represent agency policy, it
provides a basis for reconsidering the
application of thresholds in PM2.5
concentration-response functions used
in EPA’s RIAs.
The PM2.5 co-benefits for the
incremental emission reductions from
this final regulatory action reflect EPA’s
most current interpretation of the
scientific literature, including four key
changes from previous analyses for
refineries: (1) A no-threshold model for
PM2.5 that calculates incremental cobenefits down to the lowest modeled air
quality levels; (2) a revised Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL); (3) two technical
updates to the population dataset and
aggregation method; and (4)
presentation of results derived from
Pope et al. (2002) and Laden et al.
(2006) instead of using the extremes of
EPA’s Expert Elicitation on PM
Mortality (Roman et al., 2008). For more
information on the updates to the
benefit estimates, please refer to the RIA
for this rule, which is available in the
docket.
It should be noted that the PM2.5 cobenefits estimates provided above do
not include benefits from reduced
hazardous air pollutants, improved
4 Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment
of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine
Particulate Matter in the U.S. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274.
5 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The
influence of location, source, and emission type in
estimates of the human health benefits of reducing
a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health (2009)
2:169–176.
6 Pope et al, 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term
Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal
of the American Medical Association 287:1132–
1141.
7 Laden et al, 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine Particulate
Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667–
672.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08–
139F. National Center for Environmental
Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on
the Internet at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
visibility, reduced aquatic and
terrestrial acidification. The benefits
from reducing 1,014 tons of HAPs each
year have not been monetized in this
analysis. We do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to
provide such estimates for this
rulemaking. In addition, we have not
quantified the benefits attributable to
the SO2 reductions that would occur as
a result of these engines switching to
ULSD. Although we are confident that
some SO2 reductions would occur as a
result of this rule, we are unable to
estimate the percentage of engines that
may switch to ULSD in the absence of
this rule or the number of engines that
already use ULSD. As a PM2.5 precursor,
these SO2 emission reductions would
lead to fewer PM2.5-related health
effects. Because of uncertainty in the
magnitude of the attributable SO2
reductions and to avoid the appearance
of double-counting, we have chosen to
not include these estimates in the
results table shown above. If none of the
affected engines would use ULSD
without this rule, then we estimate the
additional monetized PM2.5-related
health co-benefits would be $720
million to $1.8 billion in 2013 (2008$,
3% discount rate). If all of the affected
engines would use ULSD regardless of
the rule, then the additional monetized
co-benefits from SO2 reductions would
be zero.
This analysis does not include the
type of detailed uncertainty assessment
found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA
because we lack the necessary air
quality input and monitoring data to run
the benefits model. However, the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis
provides an indication of the sensitivity
of our results to the use of alternative
concentration response functions,
including those derived from the PM
expert elicitation study.
The costs of this rulemaking are
estimated to be $373 million (2008$) in
the fifth year, and the monetized PM2.5
co-benefits are estimated at $940 million
to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3 percent
discount rate) for that same year. The
co-benefits at a 7 percent discount rate
are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$).
Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are
estimated at $570 million to $1.9 billion
(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and
$480 million to $1.7 billion (2008$, 7
percent discount rate). Using alternate
relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by
experts, higher and lower co-benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between the
two estimates we present above. EPA
believes that the co-benefits are likely to
exceed the costs even when taking into
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
account the uncertainties in the cost and
benefit estimates.
For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this
rulemaking, which is available in the
docket.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis (EIA)
that is included in the RIA indicates
that prices of affected output from the
affected industries will increase as a
result of the rule, but the changes will
be small. The largest impacts are on the
electric power generating industry
because it bears more costs from the rule
than any other affected industry (nearly
80 percent of the total annualized costs).
For all affected industries, annualized
compliance costs are 0.6 percent or less
on average of sales for firms. Thus,
output prices will not increase more
than 0.6 percent for consumers and
producers affected by this rule.
Based on the estimated compliance
costs associated with this rule and the
predicted changes in prices and output
in affected markets, the estimated social
costs are $373 million (2008 dollars),
which is the same as the estimated
compliance costs.
For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this
rulemaking, which is available in the
docket.
E. What are the non-air health,
environmental and energy impacts?
EPA does not anticipate any
significant non-air health,
environmental or energy impacts as a
result of the final rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9671
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
The information collection activities
in this final rule include performance
testing for non-emergency engines larger
than 100 HP, one-time notifications and
periodic reports, recording information,
monitoring and the maintenance of
records. The information generated by
these activities will be used by EPA to
ensure that affected facilities comply
with the emission limits and other
requirements. Records and reports are
necessary to enable EPA or States to
identify affected facilities that may not
be in compliance with the requirements.
Based on reported information, EPA
will decide which units and what
records or processes should be
inspected. The amendments do not
require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the General
Provisions. The recordkeeping
requirements require only the specific
information needed to determine
compliance. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted
to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to EPA policies
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B,
Confidentiality of Business Information.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after
sources must comply) is estimated to be
2,232,379 labor hours per year at a total
annual cost of $4,200,492. This estimate
includes notifications of compliance
and performance tests, engine
performance testing, semiannual
compliance reports, continuous
monitoring, and recordkeeping. The
total capital costs associated with the
requirements over the 3-year period of
the ICR is estimated to be $20,444,316
per year. There are no additional
operation and maintenance costs for the
requirements over the 3-year period of
the ICR. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9672
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The companies
owning facilities with affected RICE can
be grouped into small and large
categories using Small Business
Administration (SBA) general size
standard definitions. Size standards are
based on industry classification codes
(i.e., North American Industrial
Classification System, or NAICS) that
each company uses to identify the
industry or industries in which they
operate in. The SBA defines a small
business in terms of the maximum
employment, annual sales, or annual
energy-generating capacity (for
electricity generating units—EGUs) of
the owning entity. These thresholds
vary by industry and are evaluated
based on the primary industry
classification of the affected companies.
In cases where companies are classified
by multiple NAICS codes, the most
conservative SBA definition (i.e., the
NAICS code with the highest employee
or revenue size standard) was used.
As mentioned earlier in this
preamble, facilities across several
industries use affected RICE; therefore,
a number of size standards are utilized
in this analysis. For the 9 industries
identified at the 6-digit NAICS code
represented in this analysis, the
employment size standard varies from
500 to 1,000 employees. The annual
sales standard is as low as 0.75 million
dollars and as high as 34 million
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
dollars. In addition, for the electric
power generation industry, the small
business size standard is an ultimate
parent entity defined as having a total
electric output of 4 million megawatthours (MW-hr) in the previous fiscal
year. The specific SBA size standard is
identified for each affected industry
within the industry profile to support
this economic analysis.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is based on the
economic impact of this final action to
all affected small entities across all
industries affected. We estimate that all
small entities will have annualized costs
of less than 1 percent of their sales in
all industries except NAICS 2211
(electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution) and
NAICS 111 (Crop and Animal
Production). For these industries, the
number of small entities having
annualized costs of greater than 1
percent of their sales is less than 5
percent. Hence, we conclude that there
is no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
(SISNOSE) for this rule.
For more information on the small
entity impacts associated with the final
rule, please refer to the Economic
Impact and Small Business Analyses in
the public docket. These analyses can be
found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for this final rule.
Although the final rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of the final rule on small
entities. When developing the revised
standards, EPA took special steps to
ensure that the burdens imposed on
small entities were minimal. EPA
conducted several meetings with
industry trade associations to discuss
regulatory options and the
corresponding burden on industry, such
as recordkeeping and reporting. In this
rule, we are applying the minimum
level of control (i.e., the MACT floor) to
small engines and emergency engines
located at major HAP sources and the
minimum level of testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to affected
RICE sources, both major and area,
allowed by the CAA. Other alternatives
considered that provided more than the
minimum level of control were deemed
as not technically feasible or costeffective for EPA to implement for small
engines and emergency engines as
explained earlier in the preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, requires Federal agencies,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector.
This final rule contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1
year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared
under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement which is summarized
below.
As discussed previously in this
preamble, the statutory authority for the
final rule is section 112 of the CAA.
Section 112(b) lists the 189 chemicals,
compounds, or groups of chemicals
deemed by Congress to be HAP. These
toxic air pollutants are to be regulated
by NESHAP. Section 112(d) of the CAA
directs us to develop NESHAP based on
MACT, which require existing and new
major sources to control emissions of
HAP. EPA is required to address HAP
emissions from stationary RICE located
at area sources under section 112(k) of
the CAA, based on criteria set forth by
EPA in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy
previously discussed in this preamble.
These NESHAP apply to existing
stationary CI RICE less than or equal to
500 HP located at major sources of HAP
emissions, existing non-emergency
stationary CI RICE greater than 300 HP,
and existing stationary CI RICE located
at area sources of HAP emissions.
In compliance with section 205(a), we
identified and considered a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives. EPA
carefully examined the regulatory
alternatives, and selected the lowest
cost/least burdensome alternative that
EPA deems adequate to achieve the
statutory requirements of Clean Air Act
section 112 and effectively reduce
emissions of HAP.
1. Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the final rule,
including the Agency’s assessment of
costs and benefits, is detailed in the
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Final RICE NESHAP’’ in the docket.
Based on estimated compliance costs on
all sources associated with the final rule
and the predicted change in prices and
production in the affected industries
assuming passthrough of costs to
affected consumers, the estimated social
costs of the final rule are $373 million
(2008 dollars). It is estimated that by
2013, HAP will be reduced by 1,010 tpy
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
due to reductions in formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and
other HAP from existing stationary
RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
have been classified as ‘‘probable human
carcinogens.’’ Acrolein and the other
HAP are not considered carcinogenic,
but produce several other toxic effects.
The final rule is expected to reduce
emissions of CO by more than 14,000
tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM
are estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year
2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated to
be reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year
2013. Exposure to CO can affect the
cardiovascular system and the central
nervous system.
The total monetized benefits of the
final rule range from $940 million to
$2.3 billion (2008 dollars).
2. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate,
where accurate estimation is reasonably
feasible, future compliance costs
imposed by the rule and any
disproportionate budgetary effects. Our
estimates of the future compliance costs
of the final rule are discussed
previously in this preamble. We do not
believe that there will be any
disproportionate budgetary effects of the
final rule on any particular areas of the
country, State or local governments,
types of communities (e.g., urban, rural),
or particular industry segments.
3. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate
the effect of the final rule on the
national economy. To the extent
feasible, we must estimate the effect on
productivity, economic growth, full
employment, creation of productive
jobs, and international competitiveness
of the U.S. goods and services if we
determine that accurate estimates are
reasonably feasible and that such effect
is relevant and material. The nationwide
economic impact of the final rule is
presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis for RICE NESHAP’’ in the
docket. This analysis provides estimates
of the effect of the final rule on most of
the categories mentioned above. The
results of the economic impact analysis
were summarized previously in this
preamble. In addition, we have
determined that the final rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The final rule
primarily affects private industry, and
does not impose significant economic
costs on State or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). It will not have substantial direct
effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section
5–501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is
9673
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is based solely on technology
performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
EPA has prepared an analysis of energy
impacts that explains this conclusion as
follows below.
With respect to energy supply and
prices, our analysis suggests that at the
industry level, the annualized costs
represent a very small fraction of
revenue (generally less than 0.6
percent). As a result, we can conclude
supply and price impacts on affected
energy producers and consumers should
be small.
To enhance understanding regarding
the regulation’s influence on energy
consumption, we examined publicly
available data describing energy
consumption for the electric power
sector. The electric power sector is
expected to incur about 80 percent of
the $373 million in compliance costs
associated with the final rule, and is the
industry expected to incur the greatest
share of the costs relative to other
affected industries. The Annual Energy
Outlook 2010 (EIA, 2009) provides
energy consumption data. Since this
final rule only affects diesel-fired RICE,
our analysis focuses on impacts of
consumption of these fuels. As shown
in Table 5 of this preamble, the electric
power sector accounts for less than 0.5
percent of the U.S. total liquid fuels
(which includes diesel fuel). As a result,
any energy consumption changes
attributable to the final rule should not
significantly influence the supply,
distribution, or use of energy
nationwide.
TABLE 5—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION
[Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Quantity
Distillate fuel oil ........................................................................................................................................................
Residual fuel oil .......................................................................................................................................................
Liquid fuels subtotal .................................................................................................................................................
Natural gas ..............................................................................................................................................................
Steam coal ...............................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear power ..........................................................................................................................................................
Renewable energy b .................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
0.12
0.34
0.45
5.17
20.69
8.59
6.06
Share of total
energy use
(percent)
0.1
0.3
0.5
5.1
20.6
8.5
6.0
9674
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—U.S. ELECTRIC POWER a SECTOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION—Continued
[Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013
Quantity
Electricity Imports ....................................................................................................................................................
Share of total
energy use
(percent)
0.09
0.1
....................................................................................................
41.18
40.9
Delivered Energy Use ..............................................................................................................................................
72.41
72.0
Total Energy Use ..............................................................................................................................................
100.59
100.0
Total Electric Power Energy
Consumption c
a Includes
consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public. Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators.
b Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, other biomass, petroleum coke, wind,
photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. Excludes net electricity imports.
c Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113,
Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not
use available and applicable VCS.
This final rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of
Subpart A of the General Provisions, a
source may apply to EPA for permission
to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required or referenced
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income population. This rule is a
nationwide standard that reduces air
toxics emissions from existing
stationary CI engines, thus decreasing
the amount of such emissions to which
all affected populations are exposed.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this final rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rule will be effective on May 3,
2010.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 17, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 63.6590 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) to read
as follows:
■
§ 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this
subpart cover?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) An affected source which meets
either of the criteria in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section does
not have to meet the requirements of
this subpart and of subpart A of this part
except for the initial notification
requirements of § 63.6645(f).
*
*
*
*
*
(3) A stationary RICE which is an
existing spark ignition 4 stroke rich
burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at
an area source of HAP emissions; an
existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary
RICE with a site rating of less than or
equal to 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions; an existing
spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn (2SLB)
stationary RICE; an existing spark
ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB)
stationary RICE; an existing
compression ignition emergency
stationary RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
major source of HAP emissions; an
existing spark ignition emergency or
limited use stationary RICE; an existing
limited use stationary RICE with a site
rating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
emissions; an existing stationary RICE
that combusts landfill gas or digester gas
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the
gross heat input on an annual basis; or
an existing stationary residential,
commercial, or institutional emergency
stationary RICE located at an area source
of HAP emissions, does not have to
meet the requirements of this subpart
and of subpart A of this part. No initial
notification is necessary.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 63.6595 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.6595 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) If you have an existing stationary
RICE, excluding existing non-emergency
CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, you
must comply with the applicable
emission limitations and operating
limitations no later than June 15, 2007.
If you have an existing non-emergency
CI stationary RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, an
existing stationary CI RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake
HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions, or an existing stationary CI
RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions, you must comply with the
applicable emission limitations and
operating limitations no later than May
3, 2013.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 63.6600 is amended by
adding an introductory paragraph,
revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 63.6600 What emission limitations and
operating limitations must I meet if I own or
operate a stationary RICE with a site rating
of more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions?
Compliance with the numerical
emission limitations established in this
subpart is based on the results of testing
the average of three 1-hour runs using
the testing requirements and procedures
in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you own or operate any of the
following stationary RICE with a site
rating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
emissions, you do not need to comply
with the emission limitations in Tables
1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart or
operating limitations in Tables 1b and
2b to this subpart: an existing 2SLB
stationary RICE; an existing 4SLB
stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that
combusts landfill gas or digester gas
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the
gross heat input on an annual basis; an
emergency stationary RICE; or a limited
use stationary RICE.
(d) If you own or operate an existing
non-emergency stationary CI RICE with
a site rating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
emissions, you must comply with the
emission limitations in Table 2c to this
subpart and the operating limitations in
Table 2b to this subpart which apply to
you.
5. Section 63.6601 is amended by
adding a sentence at the beginning of
the section to read as follows:
■
§ 63.6601 What emission limitations must I
meet if I own or operate a 4SLB stationary
RICE with a site rating of greater than or
equal to 250 brake HP and less than 500
brake HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions?
Compliance with the numerical
emission limitations established in this
subpart is based on the results of testing
the average of three 1-hour runs using
the testing requirements and procedures
in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
* * *
6. Section 63.6602 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.6602 What emission limitations must I
meet if I own or operate an existing
stationary CI RICE with a site rating of equal
to or less than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions?
If you own or operate an existing
stationary CI RICE with a site rating of
equal to or less than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
emissions, you must comply with the
emission limitations in Table 2c to this
subpart which apply to you.
Compliance with the numerical
emission limitations established in this
subpart is based on the results of testing
the average of three 1-hour runs using
the testing requirements and procedures
in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
7. Section 63.6603 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.6603 What emission limitations and
operating limitations must I meet if I own or
operate an existing stationary CI RICE
located at an area source of HAP
emissions?
Compliance with the numerical
emission limitations established in this
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9675
subpart is based on the results of testing
the average of three 1-hour runs using
the testing requirements and procedures
in § 63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
(a) If you own or operate an existing
stationary CI RICE located at an area
source of HAP emissions, you must
comply with the requirements in Table
2d to this subpart and the operating
limitations in Table 2b to this subpart
which apply to you.
(b) If you own or operate an existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 300 HP located at area
sources in areas of Alaska not accessible
by the Federal Aid Highway System
(FAHS) you do not have to meet the
numerical CO emission limitations
specified in Table 2d to this subpart.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI
RICE greater than 300 HP located at area
sources in areas of Alaska not accessible
by the FAHS must meet the
management practices that are shown
for stationary non-emergency CI RICE
less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d
to this subpart.
8. Section 63.6604 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.6604 What fuel requirements must I
meet if I own or operate an existing
stationary CI RICE?
If you own or operate an existing nonemergency CI stationary RICE with a site
rating of more than 300 brake HP with
a displacement of less than 30 liters per
cylinder that uses diesel fuel, you must
use diesel fuel that meets the
requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for
nonroad diesel fuel. Existing nonemergency CI stationary RICE located in
Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, or at area sources in areas of
Alaska not accessible by the FAHS are
exempt from the requirements of this
section.
9. Section 63.6605 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
■
§ 63.6605 What are my general
requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with
the emission limitations and operating
limitations in this subpart that apply to
you at all times.
(b) At all times you must operate and
maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
you to make any further efforts to
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9676
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reduce emissions if levels required by
this standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether such
operation and maintenance procedures
are being used will be based on
information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 63.6612 is added to read
as follows:
■
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 63.6612 By what date must I conduct the
initial performance tests or other initial
compliance demonstrations if I own or
operate an existing stationary RICE with a
site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake
HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions or an existing stationary RICE
located at an area source of HAP
emissions?
If you own or operate an existing CI
stationary RICE with a site rating of less
than or equal to 500 brake HP located
at a major source of HAP emissions or
an existing stationary CI RICE located at
an area source of HAP emissions you are
subject to the requirements of this
section.
(a) You must conduct any initial
performance test or other initial
compliance demonstration according to
Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart that apply
to you within 180 days after the
compliance date that is specified for
your stationary RICE in § 63.6595 and
according to the provisions in
§ 63.7(a)(2).
(b) An owner or operator is not
required to conduct an initial
performance test on a unit for which a
performance test has been previously
conducted, but the test must meet all of
the conditions described in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The test must have been
conducted using the same methods
specified in this subpart, and these
methods must have been followed
correctly.
(2) The test must not be older than 2
years.
(3) The test must be reviewed and
accepted by the Administrator.
(4) Either no process or equipment
changes must have been made since the
test was performed, or the owner or
operator must be able to demonstrate
that the results of the performance test,
with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance despite process
or equipment changes.
11. Section 63.6620 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 63.6620 What performance tests and
other procedures must I use?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each performance test must be
conducted according to the
requirements that this subpart specifies
in Table 4 to this subpart. If you own
or operate a non-operational stationary
RICE that is subject to performance
testing, you do not need to start up the
engine solely to conduct the
performance test. Owners and operators
of a non-operational engine can conduct
the performance test when the engine is
started up again.
(c) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 63.6625 is amended by
revising the section heading and adding
new paragraphs (e) through (i) to read as
follows:
§ 63.6625 What are my monitoring,
installation, collection, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If you own or operate an existing
stationary RICE with a site rating of less
than 100 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions, an existing
stationary emergency RICE, or an
existing stationary RICE located at an
area source of HAP emissions not
subject to any numerical emission
standards shown in Table 2d to this
subpart, you must operate and maintain
the stationary RICE and after-treatment
control device (if any) according to the
manufacturer’s emission-related written
instructions or develop your own
maintenance plan which must provide
to the extent practicable for the
maintenance and operation of the
engine in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions.
(f) If you own or operate an existing
emergency stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake
HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions or an existing emergency
stationary RICE located at an area source
of HAP emissions, you must install a
non-resettable hour meter if one is not
already installed.
(g) If you own or operate an existing
non-emergency CI engine greater than or
equal to 300 HP that is not equipped
with a closed crankcase ventilation
system, you must comply with either
paragraph (g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of
this section. Owners and operators must
follow the manufacturer’s specified
maintenance requirements for operating
and maintaining the open or closed
crankcase ventilation systems and
replacing the crankcase filters, or can
request the Administrator to approve
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer
requirements. Existing CI engines
located at area sources in areas of
Alaska not accessible by the FAHS do
not have to meet the requirements of
paragraph (g) in this section.
(1) Install a closed crankcase
ventilation system that prevents
crankcase emissions from being emitted
to the atmosphere, or
(2) Install an open crankcase filtration
emission control system that reduces
emissions from the crankcase by
filtering the exhaust stream to remove
oil mist, particulates, and metals.
(h) If you operate a new or existing
stationary engine, you must minimize
the engine’s time spent at idle during
startup and minimize the engine’s
startup time to a period needed for
appropriate and safe loading of the
engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after
which time the emission standards
applicable to all times other than startup
in Tables 1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this
subpart apply.
(i) If you own or operate a stationary
engine that is subject to the work,
operation or management practices in
items 1, 2, or 4 of Table 2c to this
subpart or in items 1 or 4 of Table 2d
to this subpart, you have the option of
utilizing an oil analysis program in
order to extend the specified oil change
requirement in Tables 2c and 2d to this
subpart. The oil analysis must be
performed at the same frequency
specified for changing the oil in Table
2c or 2d to this subpart. The analysis
program must at a minimum analyze the
following three parameters: Total Base
Number, viscosity, and percent water
content. The condemning limits for
these parameters are as follows: Total
Base Number is less than 30 percent of
the Total Base Number of the oil when
new; viscosity of the oil has changed by
more than 20 percent from the viscosity
of the oil when new; or percent water
content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
If all of these condemning limits are not
exceeded, the engine owner or operator
is not required to change the oil. If any
of the limits are exceeded, the engine
owner or operator must change the oil
before continuing to use the engine. The
owner or operator must keep records of
the parameters that are analyzed as part
of the program, the results of the
analysis, and the oil changes for the
engine. The analysis program must be
part of the maintenance plan for the
engine.
■ 13. Section 63.6640 is amended by:
■ (a) Revising paragraph (a);
■ (b) Revising paragraph (b);
■ (c) Revising paragraph (d);
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Revising paragraph (e); and
(e) Adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
■
■
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 63.6640 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission
limitation and operating limitation in
Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b,
Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart
that apply to you according to methods
specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in
which you did not meet each emission
limitation or operating limitation in
Tables 1a and 1b, Tables 2a and 2b,
Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart
that apply to you. These instances are
deviations from the emission and
operating limitations in this subpart.
These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in
§ 63.6650. If you change your catalyst,
you must reestablish the values of the
operating parameters measured during
the initial performance test. When you
reestablish the values of your operating
parameters, you must also conduct a
performance test to demonstrate that
you are meeting the required emission
limitation applicable to your stationary
RICE.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For new, reconstructed, and
rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations from
the emission or operating limitations
that occur during the first 200 hours of
operation from engine startup (engine
burn-in period) are not violations.
Rebuilt stationary RICE means a
stationary RICE that has been rebuilt as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 94.11(a).
(e) You must also report each instance
in which you did not meet the
requirements in Table 8 to this subpart
that apply to you. If you own or operate
a new or reconstructed stationary RICE
with a site rating of less than or equal
to 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions (except new or
reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than
or equal to 250 and less than or equal
to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed
stationary RICE located at an area source
of HAP emissions, or any of the
following RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, you do
not need to comply with the
requirements in Table 8 to this subpart:
An existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an
existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an
existing emergency stationary RICE, an
existing limited use stationary RICE, or
an existing stationary RICE which fires
landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to
10 percent or more of the gross heat
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
input on an annual basis. If you own or
operate any of the following RICE with
a site rating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
emissions, you do not need to comply
with the requirements in Table 8 to this
subpart, except for the initial
notification requirements: a new or
reconstructed stationary RICE that
combusts landfill gas or digester gas
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the
gross heat input on an annual basis, a
new or reconstructed emergency
stationary RICE, or a new or
reconstructed limited use stationary
RICE.
(f) If you own or operate an existing
emergency stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake
HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions, a new emergency stationary
RICE with a site rating of more than 500
brake HP located at a major source of
HAP emissions that was installed on or
after June 12, 2006, or an existing
emergency stationary RICE located at an
area source of HAP emissions, you must
operate the engine according to the
conditions described in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) For owners and operators of
emergency engines, any operation other
than emergency operation, maintenance
and testing, and operation in nonemergency situations for 50 hours per
year, as permitted in this section, is
prohibited.
(2) There is no time limit on the use
of emergency stationary RICE in
emergency situations.
(3) You may operate your emergency
stationary RICE for the purpose of
maintenance checks and readiness
testing, provided that the tests are
recommended by Federal, State or local
government, the manufacturer, the
vendor, or the insurance company
associated with the engine. Maintenance
checks and readiness testing of such
units is limited to 100 hours per year.
The owner or operator may petition the
Administrator for approval of additional
hours to be used for maintenance checks
and readiness testing, but a petition is
not required if the owner or operator
maintains records indicating that
Federal, State, or local standards require
maintenance and testing of emergency
RICE beyond 100 hours per year.
(4) You may operate your emergency
stationary RICE up to 50 hours per year
in non-emergency situations, but those
50 hours are counted towards the 100
hours per year provided for
maintenance and testing. The 50 hours
per year for non-emergency situations
cannot be used for peak shaving or to
generate income for a facility to supply
power to an electric grid or otherwise
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
9677
supply power as part of a financial
arrangement with another entity; except
that owners and operators may operate
the emergency engine for a maximum of
15 hours per year as part of a demand
response program if the regional
transmission organization or equivalent
balancing authority and transmission
operator has determined there are
emergency conditions that could lead to
a potential electrical blackout, such as
unusually low frequency, equipment
overload, capacity or energy deficiency,
or unacceptable voltage level. The
engine may not be operated for more
than 30 minutes prior to the time when
the emergency condition is expected to
occur, and the engine operation must be
terminated immediately after the facility
is notified that the emergency condition
is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per
year of demand response operation are
counted as part of the 50 hours of
operation per year provided for nonemergency situations. The supply of
emergency power to another entity or
entities pursuant to financial
arrangement is not limited by this
paragraph (f)(4), as long as the power
provided by the financial arrangement is
limited to emergency power.
■ 14. Section 63.6645 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.6645 What notifications must I submit
and when?
(a) You must submit all of the
notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c),
63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through
(e), and (g) and (h) that apply to you by
the dates specified if you own or operate
any of the following;
(1) An existing stationary CI RICE
with a site rating of less than or equal
to 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions.
(2) An existing stationary CI RICE
located at an area source of HAP
emissions.
(3) A stationary RICE with a site rating
of more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions.
(4) A new or reconstructed 4SLB
stationary RICE with a site rating of
greater than or equal to 250 HP located
at a major source of HAP emissions.
(5) This requirement does not apply if
you own or operate an existing
stationary CI RICE less than 100 HP, an
existing stationary emergency CI RICE,
or an existing stationary CI RICE that is
not subject to any numerical emission
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Section 63.6650 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4) to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9678
§ 63.6650
when?
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
What reports must I submit and
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under § 63.10(a),
you must submit each report by the date
in Table 7 of this subpart and according
to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(9) of this section.
(1) For semiannual Compliance
reports, the first Compliance report
must cover the period beginning on the
compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in § 63.6595 and
ending on June 30 or December 31,
whichever date is the first date
following the end of the first calendar
half after the compliance date that is
specified for your source in § 63.6595.
(2) For semiannual Compliance
reports, the first Compliance report
must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance
date that is specified for your affected
source in § 63.6595.
(3) For semiannual Compliance
reports, each subsequent Compliance
report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through
June 30 or the semiannual reporting
period from July 1 through December
31.
(4) For semiannual Compliance
reports, each subsequent Compliance
report must be postmarked or delivered
no later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date is the first date
following the end of the semiannual
reporting period.
(5) For each stationary RICE that is
subject to permitting regulations
pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and
if the permitting authority has
established dates for submitting
semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6
(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first
and subsequent Compliance reports
according to the dates the permitting
authority has established instead of
according to the dates in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(6) For annual Compliance reports,
the first Compliance report must cover
the period beginning on the compliance
date that is specified for your affected
source in § 63.6595 and ending on
December 31.
(7) For annual Compliance reports,
the first Compliance report must be
postmarked or delivered no later than
January 31 following the end of the first
calendar year after the compliance date
that is specified for your affected source
in § 63.6595.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(8) For annual Compliance reports,
each subsequent Compliance report
must cover the annual reporting period
from January 1 through December 31.
(9) For annual Compliance reports,
each subsequent Compliance report
must be postmarked or delivered no
later than January 31.
(c) * * *
(4) If you had a malfunction during
the reporting period, the compliance
report must include the number,
duration, and a brief description for
each type of malfunction which
occurred during the reporting period
and which caused or may have caused
any applicable emission limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include
a description of actions taken by an
owner or operator during a malfunction
of an affected source to minimize
emissions in accordance with
§ 63.6605(b), including actions taken to
correct a malfunction.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Section 63.6655 is amended by:
■ (a) Revising paragraph (a)
introductory text;
■ (b) Revising paragraph (a)(2);
■ (c) Adding paragraph (a)(4);
■ (d) Adding paragraph (a)(5);
■ (e) Adding paragraph (e); and
■ (f) Adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
§ 63.6655
What records must I keep?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) If you must comply with the
emission and operating limitations, you
must keep the records described in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1)
through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
(1) * * *
(2) Records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or
the air pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(3) * * *
(4) Records of all required
maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(5) Records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with
§ 63.6605(b), including corrective
actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control and
monitoring equipment to its normal or
usual manner of operation.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) You must keep records of the
maintenance conducted on the
stationary RICE in order to demonstrate
that you operated and maintained the
stationary RICE and after-treatment
control device (if any) according to your
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
own maintenance plan if you own or
operate any of the following stationary
RICE;
(1) An existing stationary CI RICE
with a site rating of less than 100 brake
HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions.
(2) An existing stationary emergency
CI RICE.
(3) An existing stationary CI RICE
located at an area source of HAP
emissions subject to management
practices as shown in Table 2d to this
subpart.
(f) If you own or operate any of the
stationary RICE in paragraphs (f)(1) or
(2) of this section, you must keep
records of the hours of operation of the
engine that is recorded through the nonresettable hour meter. The owner or
operator must document how many
hours are spent for emergency
operation, including what classified the
operation as emergency and how many
hours are spent for non-emergency
operation. If the engines are used for
demand response operation, the owner
or operator must keep records of the
notification of the emergency situation,
and the time the engine was operated as
part of demand response.
(1) An existing emergency stationary
CI RICE with a site rating of less than
or equal to 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions that
does not meet the standards applicable
to non-emergency engines.
(2) An existing emergency stationary
CI RICE located at an area source of
HAP emissions that does not meet the
standards applicable to non-emergency
engines.
■ 17. Section 63.6660 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.6660 In what form and how long must
I keep my records?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) You must keep each record readily
accessible in hard copy or electronic
form for at least 5 years after the date
of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report,
or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1).
■ 18. Section 63.6665 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.6665 What parts of the General
Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 to this subpart shows which
parts of the General Provisions in
§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If
you own or operate a new or
reconstructed stationary RICE with a
site rating of less than or equal to 500
brake HP located at a major source of
HAP emissions (except new or
reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than
or equal to 250 and less than or equal
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed
stationary RICE located at an area source
of HAP emissions, or any of the
following RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, you do
not need to comply with any of the
requirements of the General Provisions
specified in Table 8: An existing 2SLB
stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB
stationary RICE, an existing stationary
RICE that combusts landfill or digester
gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of
the gross heat input on an annual basis,
an existing emergency stationary RICE,
or an existing limited use stationary
RICE. If you own or operate any of the
following RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, you do
not need to comply with the
requirements in the General Provisions
specified in Table 8 except for the initial
notification requirements: A new
stationary RICE that combusts landfill
gas or digester gas equivalent to 10
percent or more of the gross heat input
on an annual basis, a new emergency
stationary RICE, or a new limited use
stationary RICE.
19. Section 63.6675 is amended:
(a) By revising the definition of Diesel
fuel;
■ (b) By revising the definition of
Emergency stationary RICE;
■ (c) By adding the definition of Black
start engine;
■ (d) By adding the definition of Engine
startup; and
■ (e) By adding the definition of
Residential/commercial/institutional
emergency stationary RICE, in
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
■
■
§ 63.6675
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Black start engine means an engine
whose only purpose is to start up a
combustion turbine.
*
*
*
*
*
Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained
from the distillation of petroleum with
a boiling point of approximately 150 to
360 degrees Celsius. One commonly
used form is fuel oil number 2. Diesel
fuel also includes any non-distillate fuel
with comparable physical and chemical
properties (e.g. biodiesel) that is suitable
for use in compression ignition engines.
*
*
*
*
*
Emergency stationary RICE means any
stationary internal combustion engine
whose operation is limited to emergency
situations and required testing and
maintenance. Examples include
stationary ICE used to produce power
for critical networks or equipment
(including power supplied to portions
of a facility) when electric power from
the local utility (or the normal power
source, if the facility runs on its own
power production) is interrupted, or
stationary ICE used to pump water in
the case of fire or flood, etc. Stationary
CI ICE used for peak shaving are not
considered emergency stationary ICE.
Stationary CI ICE used to supply power
to an electric grid or that supply nonemergency power as part of a financial
arrangement with another entity are not
considered to be emergency engines,
except as permitted under § 63.6640(f).
Emergency stationary RICE with a siterating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP
emissions that were installed prior to
June 12, 2006, may be operated for the
purpose of maintenance checks and
readiness testing, provided that the tests
are recommended by the manufacturer,
the vendor, or the insurance company
associated with the engine. Required
testing of such units should be
minimized, but there is no time limit on
the use of emergency stationary RICE in
9679
emergency situations and for routine
testing and maintenance. Emergency
stationary RICE with a site-rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions that
were installed prior to June 12, 2006,
may also operate an additional 50 hours
per year in non-emergency situations.
All other emergency stationary RICE
must comply with the requirements
specified in § 63.6640(f).
Engine startup means the time from
initial start until applied load and
engine and associated equipment
reaches steady state or normal
operation. For stationary engine with
catalytic controls, engine startup means
the time from initial start until applied
load and engine and associated
equipment, including the catalyst,
reaches steady state or normal
operation.
*
*
*
*
*
Residential/commercial/institutional
emergency stationary RICE means an
emergency stationary RICE used in
residential establishments such as
homes or residences, commercial
establishments such as office buildings,
hotels, or stores, or institutional
establishments such as medical centers,
research centers, and institutions of
higher education.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 20. Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Emission Limitations for Existing, New,
and Reconstructed Spark Ignition,
4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP Located
at a Major Source of HAP Emissions
As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640,
you must comply with the following
emission limitations for existing, new
and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE
at 100 percent load plus or minus 10
percent:
For each . . .
You must meet the following emission limitation, except
during periods of startup . . .
During periods of startup you must . . .
1. 4SRB stationary RICE .....
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or
more. If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004,
you may reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more until June 15, 2007 or.
b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2.
Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and minimize
the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and safe loading of the engine, not
to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the non-startup emission limitations apply.1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
1
Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9680
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
21. Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Emission Limitations for New and
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression
Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP and
New and Reconstructed 4SLB
Stationary RICE ≥250 HP Located at a
Major Source of HAP Emissions
■
emission limitations for new and
reconstructed lean burn and new and
reconstructed compression ignition
stationary RICE at 100 percent load plus
or minus 10 percent:
As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640,
you must comply with the following
For each . . .
You must meet the following emission limitation, except during periods of startup . . .
During periods of startup you must . . .
1. 2SLB stationary RICE ....................................
a. Reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust to 12 ppmvd or
less at 15 percent O2. If you commenced
construction or reconstruction between December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you
may limit concentration of formaldehyde to
17 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2 until
June 15, 2007.
a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or
less at 15 percent O2.
a. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or
less at 15 percent O2.
Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and
minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and
safe loading of the engine, not to exceed
30 minutes, after which time the non-startup
emission limitations apply.1
2. 4SLB stationary RICE ....................................
3. CI stationary RICE .........................................
1 Sources
can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
22. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Operating Limitations for New and
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression
Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP
Located at a Major Source of HAP
Emissions, Existing Non-Emergency
Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
>500 HP, and New and Reconstructed
4SLB Burn Stationary RICE ≥250 HP
Located at a Major Source of HAP
Emissions
with the following operating limitations
for new and reconstructed lean burn
and existing, new and reconstructed
compression ignition stationary RICE:
As stated in §§ 63.6600, 63.6601,
63.6630, and 63.6640, you must comply
You must meet the following operating limitation . . .
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation
catalyst; or 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE
complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and using an oxidation catalyst.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
For each . . .
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
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to reduce CO emissions and not using an oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary
RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and not using an oxidation catalyst.
1 Sources
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
Comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator.
can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(g) for a different temperature range.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
23. Add Tables 2c and 2d to Subpart
ZZZZ of Part 63 to read as follows:
Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Requirements for Existing Compression
Ignition Stationary Rice Located at
Major Sources of HAP Emissions
■
9681
requirements for existing compression
ignition stationary RICE:
As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640,
you must comply with the following
For each . . .
You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . .
During periods of startup you must . . .
1. Emergency CI and black start CI.1 ................
a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first; 2
b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes
first;
c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.3
a. Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes
first; 2
b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes
first;
c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.3
Limit concentration of CO in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 230 ppmvd or less at 15
percent O2.
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.
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.
Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and
minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and
safe loading of the engine, not to exceed
30 minutes, after which time the non-startup
emission limitations apply.3
2. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI < 100
HP.
3. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI RICE
100≤HP≤300 HP.
4.
Non-Emergency,
300500 HP
1 If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the work practice
requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c of this subpart, or if performing the work practice on the required schedule would otherwise
pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law, the work practice can be delayed until the emergency is over or the unacceptable
risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. The work practice should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended
or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to perform the work practice on the
schedule required and the Federal, State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.
2 Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as described in § 63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil change requirement
in Table 2c of this subpart.
3 Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Requirements for Existing Compression
Ignition Stationary RICE Located at
Area Sources of HAP Emissions
emission and operating limitations for
existing compression ignition stationary
RICE:
As stated in §§ 63.6600 and 63.6640,
you must comply with the following
You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . .
1. Non-Emergency, non-black start CI ≤ 300
HP.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
For each . . .
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;
During periods of startup you must . . .
Minimize the engine’s time spent at idle and
minimize the engine’s startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and
safe loading of the engine, not to exceed
30 minutes, after which time the non-startup
emission limitations apply.
c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9682
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
You must meet the following requirement, except during periods of startup . . .
For each . . .
2.
Non-Emergency,
300 500
HP.
4. Emergency CI and black start CI.2 ................
During periods of startup you must . . .
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.
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.
a. Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first;1
b. Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes
first; and
c. Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, and replace as necessary.
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.
24. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Subsequent Performance Tests
■
subsequent performance test
requirements:
As stated in §§ 63.6615 and 63.6620,
you must comply with the following
For each . . .
Complying with the requirement to . . .
You must . . .
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE with a
brake horsepower >500 located at major
sources and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower >500
located at major sources.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake horsepower ≥5,000 located at major sources.
3. Stationary RICE with a brake horsepower
>500 located at major sources.
4. Existing non-emergency, non-black start CI
stationary RICE with a brake horsepower
>500 that are not limited use stationary RICE.
5. Existing non-emergency, non-black start CI
stationary RICE with a brake horsepower
>500 that are limited use stationary RICE.
Reduce CO emissions and not using a CEMS
Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1
Reduce formaldehyde emissions .....................
Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1
Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually.1
Conduct subsequent performance tests every
8,760 hrs or 3 years, whichever comes first.
Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust.
Limit or reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions.
..........................................................................
Conduct subsequent performance tests every
8,760 hrs or 5 years, whichever comes first.
1 After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or formaldehyde
emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.
25. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Requirements for Performance Tests
■
As stated in §§ 63.6610, 63.6611,
63.6612, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you
must comply with the following
requirements for performance tests for
stationary RICE for existing sources:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
For each . . .
Complying with the
requirement to . . .
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to the following
requirements . . .
1. 2SLB, 4SLB, and
CI stationary RICE.
a. Reduce CO emissions.
i. Measure the O2 at
the inlet and outlet
of the control device; and
(1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer.
(a) Using ASTM D6522–00
(2005) a (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Measurements to determine O2 must be
made at the same time as the
measurements for CO concentration.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Complying with the
requirement to . . .
9683
3. Stationary RICE .....
a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde
or CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.
According to the following
requirements . . .
(1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer.
i. Select the sampling
port location and
the number of traverse points; and
ii. Measure O2 at the
inlet and outlet of
the control device;
and
(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
§ 63.7(d)(1)(i).
(a) Using ASTM D6522–00
(2005) a,b (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or Method
10 of 40 CFR appendix A. The
CO concentration must be at
15 percent O2, dry basis.
(a) Sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of
the control device.
(1) Method 3 or 3A or 3B of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM
Method
D6522–00
(2005).
(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.
iv. Measure formaldehyde at the inlet
and the outlet of the
control device.
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions.
Using . . .
iii. Measure moisture
content at the inlet
and outlet of the
control device; and
2. 4SRB stationary
RICE.
You must . . .
ii. Measure the CO at
the inlet and the
outlet of the control
device.
For each . . .
(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A; or ASTM
D6348–03 c, provided in ASTM
D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte
Spiking Technique), the percent R must be greater than or
equal to 70 and less than or
equal to 130..
(1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
§ 63.7(d)(1)(i).
i. Select the sampling
port location and
the number of traverse points; and
ii. Determine the O2
concentration of the
stationary RICE exhaust at the sampling port location;
and
iii. Measure moisture
content of the stationary RICE exhaust at the sampling port location;
and
iv. Measure formaldehyde at the exhaust
of the stationary
RICE; or
v. Measure CO at the
exhaust of the stationary RICE.
(a) Measurements to determine
O2 concentration must be
made at the same time as the
measurements for formaldehyde concentration.
(a) Measurements to determine
moisture content must be made
at the same time and location
as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration.
(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.
(a) If using a control device, the
sampling site must be located
at the outlet of the control device.
(1) Method 3 or 3A or 3B of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM
Method
D6522–00
(2005).
(a) Measurements to determine
O2 concentration must be
made at the same time and location as the measurements for
formaldehyde concentration.
(1) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or Test Method
320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D 6348–03.
(a) Measurements to determine
moisture content must be made
at the same time and location
as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration.
(1) Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A; or ASTM
D6348–03 c, provided in ASTM
D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte
Spiking Technique), the percent R must be greater than or
equal to 70 and less than or
equal to 130.
(1) Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, ASTM Method
D6522–00 (2005) a, Method
320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348–03.
(a) 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.
(a) CO concentration must be at
15 percent O2, dry basis. Results of this test consist of the
average of the three 1-hour
longer runs.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
a You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM–D6522–00 (2005). You may obtain a copy of ASTM–D6522–00 (2005) from at
least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959,
or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM–D6522–00 (2005) may be used to test both CI and SI
stationary RICE.
b You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348–03.
c You may obtain a copy of ASTM–D6348–03 from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9684
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
25. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
■
the emission and operating limitations
as required by the following:
As stated in §§ 63.6612, 63.6625 and
63.6630, you must initially comply with
Complying with the requirement to . . .
You have demonstrated initial compliance if
. . .
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located
at a major source.
a. Reduce CO emissions and using oxidation
catalyst, and using a CPMS.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located
at a major source.
a. Reduce CO emissions and not using oxidation catalyst.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE >500 HP located
at a major source.
a. Reduce CO emissions, and using a CEMS
4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a
major source.
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and using
NSCR.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a
major source.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
For each . . .
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not
using NSCR.
6. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major
source.
a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in
the stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.
i. The average 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.
i. The average reduction of emissions of CO
determined from the initial performance test
achieves the required CO percent reduction; and
ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously
monitor operating parameters approved by
the Administrator (if any) according to the
requirements in § 63.6625(b); and
iii. You have recorded the approved operating
parameters (if any) during the initial performance test.
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.
i. The average reduction of emissions of formaldehyde determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than
the required formaldehyde percent reduction; and
ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously
monitor catalyst inlet temperature according
to the requirements in § 63.6625(b); and
iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst inlet temperature during
the initial performance test.
i. The average reduction of emissions of formaldehyde determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than
the required formaldehyde percent reduction; and
ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously
monitor operating parameters approved by
the Administrator (if any) according to the
requirements in § 63.6625(b); and
iii. You have recorded the approved operating
parameters (if any) during the initial performance test.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
For each . . .
Complying with the requirement to . . .
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major
source.
a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in
the stationary RICE exhaust and not using
oxidation catalyst or NSCR.
8. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE
≥100 HP located at a major source, existing
non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP,
and existing stationary non-emergency RICE
≥100 HP located at an area source.
9. Existing stationary non-emergency RICE
≥100 HP located at a major source, existing
non-emergency CI stationary RICE >500 HP,
and existing stationary non-emergency RICE
≥100 HP located at an area source.
a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions .....
26. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or
CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
■
9685
You have demonstrated initial compliance if
. . .
iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst inlet temperature during
the initial performance test.
i. The average formaldehyde concentration,
corrected to 15 percent O2, dry basis, from
the three test runs is less than or equal to
the formaldehyde emission limitation; and
ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously
monitor operating parameters approved by
the Administrator (if any) according to the
requirements in § 63.6625(b); and
iii. You have recorded the approved operating
parameters (if any) during the initial performance test.
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.
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.
emissions and operating limitations as
required by the following:
As stated in § 63.6640, you must
continuously comply with the
Complying with the requirement to . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and CI stationary
RICE >500 HP located at a major source.
a. Reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and CI stationary
RICE >500 HP located at a major source.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
For each . . .
a. Reduce CO emissions and not using an
oxidation catalyst, and using a CPMS.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE >500 HP
located at a major source and CI stationary
RICE >500 HP located at a major source.
a. Reduce CO emissions and using a CEMS
i. Conducting semiannual performance tests
for CO to demonstrate that the required CO
percent reduction is achieved a; and
ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature
data according to § 63.6625(b); and
iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and
iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages
within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; and
v. Measuring the pressure drop across the
catalyst once per month and demonstrating
that the pressure drop across the catalyst is
within the operating limitation established
during the performance test.
i. Conducting semiannual performance tests
for CO to demonstrate that the required CO
percent reduction is achieved a; and
ii. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b);
and
iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and
iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages
within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the
performance test.
i. Collecting the monitoring data according to
§ 63.6625(a), reducing the measurements
to 1-hour averages, calculating the percent
reduction of CO emissions according to
§ 63.6620; and
ii. Demonstrating that the catalyst achieves
the required percent reduction of CO emissions over the 4-hour averaging period; and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9686
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
For each . . .
Complying with the requirement to . . .
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and using
NSCR.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a
major source.
a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions and not
using NSCR.
6. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake HP
≥5,000 located at a major source.
Reduce formaldehyde emissions .....................
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major
source.
Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust and using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.
8. Stationary RICE >500 HP located at a major
source.
Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust and not using oxidation catalyst or NSCR.
9. Existing stationary CI RICE not subject to
any numerical emission limitations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
4. 4SRB stationary RICE >500 HP located at a
major source.
a. Work or Management practices ..................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:01 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
iii. Conducting an annual RATA of your CEMS
using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data
quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F, procedure 1.
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.
i. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b);
and
ii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and
iii. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages
within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the
performance test.
Conducting semiannual performance tests for
formaldehyde to demonstrate that the required formaldehyde percent reduction is
achieved.a
i. Conducting semiannual performance tests
for formaldehyde to demonstrate that your
emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit a; and
ii. Collecting the catalyst inlet temperature
data according to § 63.6625(b); and
iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and
iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages
within the operating limitations for the catalyst inlet temperature; and
v. Measuring the pressure drop across the
catalyst once per month and demonstrating
that the pressure drop across the catalyst is
within the operating limitation established
during the performance test.
i. Conducting semiannual performance tests
for formaldehyde to demonstrate that your
emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit a; and
ii. Collecting the approved operating parameter (if any) data according to § 63.6625(b);
and
iii. Reducing these data to 4-hour rolling averages; and
iv. Maintaining the 4-hour rolling averages
within the operating limitations for the operating parameters established during the
performance test.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
9687
For each . . .
Complying with the requirement to . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
10. Existing stationary RICE >500 HP that are
not limited use stationary RICE, except 4SRB
>500 HP located at major sources.
a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions; or
b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or
CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.
11. Existing limited use stationary RICE >500
HP that are limited use CI stationary RICE.
a. Reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions; or
b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde or
CO in the stationary RICE exhaust.
i. Conducting performance tests every 8,760
hours or 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.
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.
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.
27. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Requirements for Reports
As stated in § 63.6650, you must
comply with the following requirements
for reports:
■
You must submit a(n) . . .
The report must contain . . .
You must submit the report . . .
1. Compliance report ..........................................
a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or operating limitations that
apply to you, a statement that there were
no deviations from the emission limitations
or operating limitations during the reporting
period. If there were no periods during
which the CMS, including CEMS and
CPMS, was out-of-control, as specified in
§ 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were not
periods during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period; or
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
c. If you had a malfunction during the reporting
period,
the
information
in
§ 63.6650(c)(4).
a. The fuel flow rate of each fuel and the
heating values that were used in your calculations, and you must demonstrate that
the percentage of heat input provided by
landfill gas or digester gas, is equivalent to
10 percent or more of the gross heat input
on an annual basis; and
b. The operating limits provided in your Federally enforceable permit, and any deviations from these limits; and
c. Any problems or errors suspected with the
meters.
i. Semiannually according to the requirements
in § 63.6650(b)(1)–(5) for engines that are
not limited use stationary CI RICE subject
to numerical emission limitations; and
ii. Annually according to the requirements in
§ 63.6650(b)(6)–(9) for engines that are limited use stationary CI RICE subject to numerical emission limitations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
2. Report .....................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
i. Semiannually according to the requirements
in § 63.6650(b).
i. Semiannually according to the requirements
in § 63.6650(b).
i. Annually, according to the requirements in
§ 63.6650.
i. See item 2.a.i.
i. See item 2.a.i.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9688
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
28. Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.
Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart ZZZZ.
As stated in § 63.6665, you must
comply with the following applicable
general provisions.
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
§ 63.1 .............................................
General applicability of the General Provisions.
Definitions ...................................................
Units and abbreviations ..............................
Prohibited activities and circumvention ......
Construction and reconstruction .................
Applicability .................................................
Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources.
Notification ..................................................
[Reserved]
Compliance dates for new and reconstructed area sources that become
major sources.
Compliance dates for existing sources ......
[Reserved]
Compliance dates for existing area
sources that become major sources.
[Reserved]
Operation and maintenance .......................
Applicability of standards ............................
Methods for determining compliance .........
Finding of compliance ................................
Use of alternate standard ...........................
Opacity and visible emission standards .....
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.6(j) ..........................................
§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ..............................
Compliance extension procedures and criteria.
Presidential compliance exemption ............
Performance test dates ..............................
§ 63.7(a)(3) ....................................
§ 63.7(b)(1) ....................................
CAA section 114 authority ..........................
Notification of performance test .................
Yes.
Yes ....................
§ 63.7(b)(2) ....................................
Notification of rescheduling ........................
Yes ....................
§ 63.7(c) .........................................
Quality assurance/test plan ........................
Yes ....................
§ 63.7(d) .........................................
§ 63.7(e)(1) ....................................
Testing facilities ..........................................
Conditions for conducting performance
tests.
Conduct of performance tests and reduction of data.
Test run duration ........................................
Administrator may require other testing
under section 114 of the CAA.
Alternative test method provisions .............
Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting.
Waiver of tests ............................................
Applicability of monitoring requirements ....
Yes.
No. .....................
Performance specifications ........................
[Reserved]
Monitoring for control devices ....................
Monitoring ...................................................
Multiple effluents and multiple monitoring
systems.
Monitoring system operation and maintenance.
Routine and predictable SSM ....................
SSM not in Startup Shutdown Malfunction
Plan.
Yes.
§ 63.2 .............................................
§ 63.3 .............................................
§ 63.4 .............................................
§ 63.5 .............................................
§ 63.6(a) .........................................
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ..............................
§ 63.6(b)(5) ....................................
§ 63.6(b)(6) ....................................
§ 63.6(b)(7) ....................................
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ..............................
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ..............................
§ 63.6(c)(5) .....................................
§ 63.6(d) .........................................
§ 63.6(e) .........................................
§ 63.6(f)(1) .....................................
§ 63.6(f)(2) .....................................
§ 63.6(f)(3) .....................................
§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ..............................
§ 63.6(h) .........................................
§ 63.6(i) ..........................................
§ 63.7(e)(2) ....................................
§ 63.7(e)(3) ....................................
§ 63.7(e)(4) ....................................
§ 63.7(f) ..........................................
§ 63.7(g) .........................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 63.7(h) .........................................
§ 63.8(a)(1) ....................................
§ 63.8(a)(2) ....................................
§ 63.8(a)(3) ....................................
§ 63.8(a)(4) ....................................
§ 63.8(b)(1) ....................................
§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ..............................
§ 63.8(c)(1) .....................................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:01 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes ....................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Explanation
Additional terms defined in § 63.6675.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................
Yes.
Yes ....................
Yes ....................
Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or
visible emission standards.
Subpart ZZZZ contains performance test
dates at §§ 63.6610, 63.6611, and
63.6612.
Except that § 63.7(b)(1) only applies as
specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.7(b)(2) only applies as
specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.7(c) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Subpart ZZZZ specifies conditions for conducting performance tests at § 63.6620.
Subpart ZZZZ specifies test methods at
§ 63.6620.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ....................
Subpart ZZZZ contains specific requirements for monitoring at § 63.6625.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................
Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ..............................
§ 63.8(c)(4) .....................................
Compliance with operation and maintenance requirements.
Monitoring system installation ....................
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) requirements.
§ 63.8(c)(5) .....................................
§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ..............................
COMS minimum procedures ......................
CMS requirements ......................................
No ......................
Yes ....................
§ 63.8(d) .........................................
§ 63.8(e) .........................................
CMS quality control ....................................
CMS performance evaluation .....................
Yes.
Yes ....................
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ...............................
Alternative monitoring method ....................
Yes ....................
§ 63.8(f)(6) .....................................
Alternative to relative accuracy test ...........
Yes ....................
§ 63.8(g) .........................................
Data reduction ............................................
Yes ....................
§ 63.9(a) .........................................
Yes.
§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ..............................
Applicability and State delegation of notification requirements.
Initial notifications .......................................
§ 63.9(c) .........................................
Request for compliance extension .............
Yes ....................
§ 63.9(d) .........................................
Notification of special compliance requirements for new sources.
Notification of performance test .................
Yes ....................
No ......................
§ 63.9(g)(1) ....................................
Notification of visible emission (VE)/opacity
test.
Notification of performance evaluation .......
§ 63.9(g)(2) ....................................
Notification of use of COMS data ..............
No ......................
§ 63.9(g)(3) ....................................
Notification that criterion for alternative to
RATA is exceeded.
Yes ....................
§ 63.9(e) .........................................
§ 63.9(f) ..........................................
Yes.
Yes ....................
Yes ....................
Yes ....................
Yes ....................
§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ..............................
Notification of compliance status ................
Yes ....................
§ 63.9(i) ..........................................
§ 63.9(j) ..........................................
§ 63.10(a) .......................................
Adjustment of submittal deadlines .............
Change in previous information .................
Administrative provisions for recordkeeping/reporting.
Record retention .........................................
Records related to SSM .............................
Records ......................................................
Record when under waiver ........................
Records when using alternative to RATA ..
Records of supporting documentation .......
Records of applicability determination .......
Additional records for sources using
CEMS.
General reporting requirements .................
Report of performance test results .............
Reporting opacity or VE observations ........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ....................
Progress reports .........................................
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports
Additional CMS Reports .............................
COMS-related report ..................................
Excess
emission
and
parameter
exceedances reports.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No ......................
Yes. ...................
Explanation
Except that subpart ZZZZ does not require
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System
(COMS).
Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS.
Except that subpart ZZZZ does not require
COMS.
Except for § 63.8(e)(5)(ii), which applies to
COMS.
Except that § 63.8(e) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.8(f)(4) only applies as
specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.8(f)(6) only applies as
specified in § 63.6645.
Except that provisions for COMS are not
applicable. Averaging periods for demonstrating compliance are specified at
§§ 63.6635 and 63.6640.
Except that § 63.9(b)(3) is reserved.
Except that § 63.9(b) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.9(c) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.9(d) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Except that § 63.9(e) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or
VE standards.
Except that § 63.9(g) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or
VE standards.
If alternative is in use.
Except that § 63.9(g) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Except that notifications for sources using
a CEMS are due 30 days after completion
of
performance
evaluations.
§ 63.9(h)(4) is reserved.
Except that § 63.9(h) only applies as specified in § 63.6645.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(1) ..................................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(v) .........................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi) ......................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .............................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............................
§ 63.10(b)(3) ..................................
§ 63.10(c) .......................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
9689
§ 63.10(d)(1) ..................................
§ 63.10(d)(2) ..................................
§ 63.10(d)(3) ..................................
§ 63.10(d)(4) ..................................
§ 63.10(d)(5) ..................................
§ 63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i) ..................
§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ..............................
§ 63.10(e)(3) ..................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ....................
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................
For CO standard if using RATA alternative.
Except that § 63.10(c)(2)–(4) and (9) are
reserved.
Subpart ZZZZ does not contain opacity or
VE standards.
Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS.
Except that § 63.10(e)(3)(i) (C) is reserved.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
9690
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
Applies to subpart
§ 63.10(e)(4) ..................................
§ 63.10(f) ........................................
§ 63.11 ...........................................
§ 63.12 ...........................................
§ 63.13 ...........................................
§ 63.14 ...........................................
§ 63.15 ...........................................
Reporting COMS data ................................
Waiver for recordkeeping/reporting ............
Flares ..........................................................
State authority and delegations ..................
Addresses ...................................................
Incorporation by reference .........................
Availability of information ............................
No ......................
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Explanation
Subpart ZZZZ does not require COMS.
[FR Doc. 2010–3508 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:47 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03MRR2.SGM
03MRR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9648-9690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3508]
[[Page 9647]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 9648]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-9115-7]
RIN 2060-AP36
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing stationary compression ignition
reciprocating internal combustion engines that either are located at
area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions or that have a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower and are located at
major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. In addition, EPA is
promulgating national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
for existing non-emergency stationary compression ignition engines
greater than 500 brake horsepower that are located at major sources of
hazardous air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is revising the
provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the
engines that were regulated previously by these national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. EPA also relies on materials in Docket ID
Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0030 and incorporates those dockets into the record for the final rule.
All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation will be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; e-
mail address king.melanie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information Document. On March 5,
2009 (71 FR 9698), EPA proposed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) that either are located at area
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that have a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower (HP) and are
located at major sources of HAP emissions. In addition, EPA proposed
national emission standards for HAP for existing stationary compression
ignition (CI) engines greater than 500 brake HP that are located at
major sources. A summary of the public comments on the proposal and
EPA's responses to the comments, as well as the Regulatory Impact
Analysis Report, are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708.
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark
ignition engines?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?
B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?
C. What are the final requirements?
D. What are the operating limitations?
E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Standards
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Other
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Requirements
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Emergency Engines
F. Emissions Data
G. Final Rule Impacts
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the benefits?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary 2211 Electric power
internal combustion engine as generation,
defined in this final rule. transmission, or
distribution.
622110 Medical and surgical
hospitals.
48621 Natural gas
transmission.
211111 Crude petroleum and
natural gas
production.
211112 Natural gas liquids
producers.
[[Page 9649]]
92811 National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria of this final rule. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May
3, 2010. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark ignition
engines?
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule, published on
March 5, 2009, EPA proposed the NESHAP for all existing stationary RICE
located at area sources of HAP emissions and existing stationary RICE
that had a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP and
located at major sources of HAP emissions. Also, EPA proposed NESHAP
for existing stationary CI engines greater than 500 brake HP located at
major sources.
During the comment period following the proposal, EPA received a
number of comments stating that EPA had insufficient emissions data for
existing spark ignition (SI) engines. Because commenters believed that
EPA had inadequate emissions data for SI engines, they suggested that
EPA should consider seeking an extension of its February 10, 2010
consent decree deadline to allow additional time for the collection of
emissions data for SI engines. Several commenters indicated that they
would work with EPA to gather the necessary test data to obtain
adequate and sufficient emissions tests for SI engines. Among other
things, the commenters noted that developing the final requirements for
SI engines later in 2010 would provide sufficient time for industry to
develop test programs, conduct testing of engines, assemble test
results, and submit the complete results to EPA for review. Other
commenters requested that EPA seek a one year extension of its consent
decree deadline for SI engines, which would mean a final rule for these
engines by February 10, 2011.
In consideration of the comments, EPA sought and obtained a six
month extension of its February 10, 2010 deadline for SI engines. EPA
maintains that this period is sufficient for the commenters to provide
additional test data for the SI engines. Thus, pursuant to the revised
consent decree between EPA and Sierra Club, EPA will finalize
requirements for existing stationary SI engines that are less than or
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions and
existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of HAP
emissions by August 10, 2010. For these reasons, this final rule does
not contain standards for existing stationary SI engines that are less
than or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions
and existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of
HAP emissions.
Consistent with the original consent decree, EPA is finalizing
regulations for existing stationary CI engines that are less than or
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources and existing stationary CI
engines that are located at area sources in this final rule. EPA is
also promulgating requirements for existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines that are greater than 500 HP and located at major sources.
EPA plans to continue to work with affected stakeholders over the
next several months in order to obtain more complete emissions data for
existing stationary SI engines. The emissions data collected will be
analyzed and if EPA's review indicates that the submitted data meets
acceptance criteria, EPA will include the data in developing final
standards. EPA will promulgate regulations for existing stationary SI
engines by August 10, 2010.
II. Background
This action promulgates NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE with
a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources,
existing non-emergency CI engines with a site rating greater than 500
HP at major sources, and existing stationary CI RICE of any power
rating located at area sources. EPA is finalizing these standards to
meet its statutory obligation to address HAP emissions from these
sources under sections 112(d), 112(c)(3) and 112(k) of the CAA. The
final NESHAP for stationary RICE will be promulgated
[[Page 9650]]
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which already contains standards
applicable to new stationary RICE and some existing stationary RICE.
EPA promulgated NESHAP for existing, new, and reconstructed
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major sources on June
15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and
reconstructed stationary RICE that are located at area sources of HAP
emissions and for new and reconstructed stationary RICE that have a
site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP that are located at major
sources of HAP emissions on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3568). At that
time, EPA did not promulgate final requirements for existing stationary
RICE that are located at area sources of HAP emissions or for existing
stationary RICE that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP
that are located at major sources of HAP emissions. Although EPA
proposed standards for these sources, EPA did not finalize these
standards due to comments received indicating that the proposed Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) determinations for existing
sources were inappropriate because of a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007, which
vacated EPA's MACT standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ). Sierra
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007). Among other things, the DC
Circuit found that EPA's no emission reduction MACT determination in
the challenged rule was unlawful. Because EPA had used a MACT floor
methodology in the proposed stationary RICE rule similar to the
methodology used in the Brick MACT, EPA decided to re-evaluate the MACT
floors for existing major sources that have a site rating of less than
or equal to 500 brake HP consistent with the Court's decision in the
Brick MACT case. Also, EPA has re-evaluated the standards for existing
area sources in light of the comments received on the proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders have encouraged the Agency to review
whether there are further ways to reduce emissions of pollutants from
existing stationary diesel engines. In its comments on EPA's 2005
proposed rule for new stationary diesel engines (70 FR 39870), the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggested several possible avenues for
the regulation of existing stationary diesel engines, including use of
diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed diesel particulate filters
(CDPF), as well as the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. EDF
suggested that such controls can provide significant pollution
reductions at reasonable cost. EPA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) in January 2008, where it solicited comment on
several issues concerning options to regulate emissions of pollutants
from existing stationary diesel engines, generally, and specifically
from larger, older stationary diesel engines. EPA solicited comment and
collected information to aid decision-making related to the reduction
of HAP emissions from existing stationary diesel engines and
specifically from larger, older engines under CAA section 112
authorities. The Agency sought comment on the larger, older non-
emergency CI engines because available data indicate that those engines
emit the majority of particulate matter (PM) and toxic emissions from
non-emergency stationary CI engines as a whole. A summary of comments
and responses that were received on the ANPRM is included in docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995. EPA proposed and is finalizing emissions
reductions from existing non-emergency stationary diesel engines at
major sources that have a site rating greater than 500 HP.
This action also revises the provisions of the existing NESHAP as
it applies to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. This
revision affects all stationary engines regulated in this NESHAP,
including stationary engines that were regulated by the 2004 and 2008
NESHAP. The revision of these provisions is a result of a Court
decision that invalidated regulations related to startup, shutdown and
malfunction in the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)).
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?
This final rule addresses emissions from existing stationary CI
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all
existing stationary CI engines located at area sources. This final rule
also addresses emissions from existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP at major sources. A major source of HAP
emissions is generally a stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams)
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68
megagrams) or more per year. An area source of HAP emissions is a
source that is not a major source.
This action revises the regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ, currently applicable to new and reconstructed stationary RICE and
to existing stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major
sources. Through this action, we are adding to subpart ZZZZ
requirements for: Existing CI stationary RICE less than or equal to 500
HP located at major sources and existing CI stationary RICE located at
area sources.
1. Stationary CI RICE <=500 HP at Major Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to address HAP
emissions from existing stationary CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources. For stationary engines less than or equal to
500 HP at major sources, EPA must determine what is the appropriate
MACT for those engines under sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) of the CAA.
EPA has divided stationary CI RICE into emergency and non-emergency
engines in order to capture the unique differences between these types
of engines.
2. Stationary CI RICE at Area Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, in order to
address HAP emissions from existing stationary RICE located at area
sources. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish NESHAP for
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under
CAA section 112(c). As noted above, an area source is a stationary
source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP that, as a result of emissions of area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. EPA implemented these requirements through the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). The
area source stationary engine source category was one of the listed
categories. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources.
[[Page 9651]]
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on generally available control technologies
(GACT) and management practices is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, EPA can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that
have many small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. EPA also considers the
standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to
determine if the control technologies and management practices are
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, EPA may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source category at issue. Finally, as EPA has already noted,
in determining GACT for a particular area source category, EPA
considers the costs and economic impacts of available control
technologies and management practices on that category.
The urban HAP that must be regulated at stationary RICE to achieve
the CAA section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate categories accounting
for 90 percent of the urban HAP are: 7 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, beryllium
compounds, and cadmium compounds. As explained below, EPA chose to
select formaldehyde to serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions.
Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant present in the highest
concentration from stationary engines. In addition, emissions data show
that formaldehyde emission levels are related to other HAP emission
levels. EPA has previously demonstrated that carbon monoxide (CO) is an
appropriate surrogate for formaldehyde and is consequently finalizing
emission standards in terms of CO for existing stationary CI RICE at
area sources.
Consistent with existing stationary CI RICE at major sources, EPA
has also divided the existing stationary CI RICE at area sources into
emergency and non-emergency engines in order to properly take into
account the differences between these engines.
3. Stationary CI RICE > 500 HP at Major Sources
In addition, EPA is finalizing emission standards for non-emergency
stationary CI engines greater than 500 HP at major sources.
B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?
The final rule regulates emissions of HAP. Available emissions data
show that several HAP, which are formed during the combustion process
or which are contained within the fuel burned, are emitted from
stationary engines. The HAP which have been measured in emission tests
conducted on diesel fired stationary RICE include: 1, 3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane,
naphthalene, PAH, polycyclic organic matter, styrene, toluene, and
xylene. Metallic HAP from diesel fired stationary RICE that have been
measured include: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
and selenium.
EPA described the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted
from the operation of stationary RICE in the preamble to 40 CFR part
63, subpart ZZZZ, published on June 15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). More detail
on the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted from the
operation of stationary RICE can be found in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the final rule. These HAP emissions are known to
cause, or contribute significantly to air pollution, which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The final rule will limit emissions of HAP through emissions
standards for CO for existing stationary CI RICE. Carbon monoxide has
been shown to be an appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions from CI
engines. For the NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA found that there is a
relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions
reductions from CI stationary engines. Therefore, because testing for
CO emissions has many advantages over testing for HAP emissions, CO
emissions were chosen as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for
CI stationary engines.
For the standards being finalized in this action, EPA believes that
previous decisions regarding the appropriateness of using CO in
concentration (parts per million (ppm)) levels as has been done for
stationary sources before as surrogates for HAP are still valid.\1\
Consequently, EPA is finalizing emission standards for CO for
stationary CI engines in order to regulate HAP emissions. In addition,
EPA is promulgating separate provisions relevant to emissions of
metallic HAP from existing diesel engines, as discussed in section
III.C. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In contrast, mobile source emission standards for diesel
engines (both nonroad and on-highway) are promulgated on a mass/bhp-
hr basis rather than concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reducing HAP and CO, the final rule will result in
the reduction of PM emissions from existing stationary diesel engines.
The aftertreatment technologies expected to be used to reduce HAP and
CO emissions also reduce emissions of PM from diesel engines. Also, the
final rule requires the use of ULSD for diesel-fueled stationary non-
emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less
than 30 liters per cylinder. This will result in lower emissions of
sulfur oxides (SOX) and sulfate particulate from these
engines by reducing the sulfur content in the fuel.
C. What are the final requirements?
1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major Sources.
The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this
action for stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources
are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The numerical emission standards
are in units of ppm by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or percent reduction.
[[Page 9652]]
Table 1--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary CI RICE
Located at Major Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except during periods of
Subcategory startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 100<=HP<=300.......... 230 ppmvd CO at 15% O2.
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP............... 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, certain existing stationary RICE located at major
sources are subject to fuel requirements. Owners and operators of
existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a
displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder located at major
sources that use diesel fuel must use only diesel fuel meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section requires that diesel
fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and either a minimum
cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent.
These fuel requirements are being finalized in order to reduce the
potential formation of sulfate compounds that are emitted when high
sulfur diesel fuel is used in combination with oxidation catalysts and
to assist in the efficient operation of the oxidation catalysts.
EPA is finalizing work practice standards for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources
and existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located
at major sources. Existing stationary emergency CI RICE less than or
equal to 500 HP located at major sources are subject to the following
work practices:
Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located at
major sources are subject to the following work practices:
Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Sources also have the option to use an oil change analysis program to
extend the oil change frequencies specified above. The analysis program
must at a minimum analyze the following three parameters: Total Base
Number, viscosity, and percent water content. The analysis must be
conducted at the same frequencies specified for changing the engine
oil. If the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the
engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of
the condemning limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator must
change the oil before continuing to use the engine. The condemning
limits are as follows:
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total
Base Number of the oil when new; or
Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(g), sources can also
request that the Administrator approve alternative work practices.
EPA is also including in the final rule additional capture and
collection requirements to reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners and
operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than
300 HP located at major sources must do one of the following if the
engine is not already equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation
system: (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2)
install an open crankcase filtration emission control system that
reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to
remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this
action for stationary CI RICE located at area sources are shown in
Table 2 of this preamble. Existing stationary emergency engines at area
sources located at residential, commercial, or institutional facilities
are not part of the source category and therefore are not subject to
any requirements under this final rule.
Although existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 300
HP that are located at area sources in Alaska that are not accessible
by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) do not have to meet the CO
emission standards specified in Table 2 of this preamble, they must
meet the management practices discussed in this section for non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP.
Table 2--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary RICE
Located at Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except during periods of
Subcategory startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP................ 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters
per cylinder located at area sources that use diesel fuel must use only
diesel fuel meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section
requires that diesel fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and
either a minimum cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35
volume percent.
[[Page 9653]]
EPA is finalizing management practices for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE located at area sources and existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources.
Existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at area sources are
subject to the following management practices:
Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources are subject to the following management
practices:
Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
As discussed above for major sources, these sources may utilize an oil
analysis program in order to extend the specified oil change
requirement specified above. Also, sources have the option to work with
State permitting authorities pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities'') for approval of alternative management practices.
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to
approve alternative State/local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when
such requirements are demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA
promulgated standards.
Finally, in order to reduce metallic HAP emissions, existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP located at area
sources must do one of the following if the engine is not already
equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install a
closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions
from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2) install an open crankcase
filtration emission control system that reduces emissions from the
crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to remove oil mist,
particulates, and metals.
3. Startup Requirements
The following stationary engines are subject to specific
operational standards during engine startup:
Existing CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at
major sources,
Existing non-emergency CI RICE greater than 500 HP located
at major sources,
Existing CI RICE located at area sources,
New or reconstructed non-emergency two-stroke lean burn
(2SLB) >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
New or reconstructed non-emergency four-stroke lean burn
(4SLB) >=250 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
Existing non-emergency four-stroke rich burn (4SRB) >500
HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
New or reconstructed non-emergency 4SRB >500 HP located at
a major source of HAP emissions, and
New or reconstructed non-emergency CI >500 HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions.
Engine startup is defined as the time from initial start until applied
load and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal
operation. For stationary engines with catalytic controls, engine
startup means the time from initial start until applied load and engine
and associated equipment reaches steady state, or normal operation,
including the catalyst. Owners and operators must minimize the engine's
time spent at idle and minimize the engine's startup to a period needed
for appropriate and safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 30
minutes, after which time the engine must meet the otherwise applicable
emission standards. These requirements will limit the HAP emissions
during periods of engine startup. Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR
63.6(g), engines at major sources may petition the Administrator for an
alternative work practice. An owner or operator of an engine at an area
source can work with its State permitting authority pursuant to EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for approval of an alternative
management practice. See 40 CFR Subpart E (setting forth requirements
for, among other things, equivalency by permit, rule substitution).
D. What are the operating limitations?
In addition to the standards discussed above, EPA is finalizing
operating limitations for stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are
greater than 500 HP. Owners and operators of engines that are equipped
with oxidation catalyst must maintain the catalyst so that the pressure
drop across the catalyst does not change by more than 2 inches of water
from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the
initial performance test. Owners and operators of these engines must
also maintain the temperature of the stationary RICE exhaust so that
the catalyst inlet temperature is between 450 and 1350 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Owners and operators may petition for a different
temperature range; the petition must demonstrate why it is
operationally necessary and appropriate to operate below the
temperature range specified in the rule (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)). Owners
and operators of engines that are not using oxidation catalyst must
comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP meeting the requirement to use open or
closed crankcases must follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance
requirements for operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase
ventilation systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request
the Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer requirements.
E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?
The following sections describe the requirements for demonstrating
compliance under the final rule.
1. Existing Stationary CI RICE at Major Sources
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are less than 100 HP and stationary
emergency CI RICE located at major sources must operate and maintain
their stationary RICE and aftertreatment control device (if any)
according to the manufacturer's emission-related written instructions
or develop their own maintenance plan. Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources that are less
than 100 HP and existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at major
sources do not have to conduct any
[[Page 9654]]
performance testing because they are not subject to numerical emission
standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are greater than or equal to 100 HP and
less than or equal to 500 HP must conduct an initial performance test
to demonstrate that they are achieving the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 500 HP located at major sources must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving
the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are
greater than 500 HP and are located at a major source must continuously
monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an oxidation
catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop across the
catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation catalyst is not
being used on the engine, the owner or operator must continuously
monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) approved by the
Administrator.
On October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59956), EPA proposed performance
specification requirements for continuous parametric monitoring systems
(CPMS). Currently there are no performance specifications for the CPMS
that are required for continuously monitoring the catalyst inlet
temperature. The timetable for finalizing the proposed performance
specification requirements is uncertain; therefore, EPA plans to
finalize performance specification requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ for the CPMS systems used for continuous catalyst inlet
temperature monitoring when the final requirements are promulgated for
existing SI engines in August 2010.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
Owners and operators of existing stationary RICE located at area
sources that are subject to management practices, as shown in Table 2
of this preamble, must develop a maintenance plan that specifies how
the management practices will be met. Owners and operators of existing
stationary RICE that are subject to management practices do not have to
conduct any performance testing.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 300 HP that are located at area sources must conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate that they are achieving the
required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
that are greater than 500 HP and located at area sources and are not
limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial performance test
and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, whichever
comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving the required
emission standards. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE that are greater than 500 HP and located at area
sources and are limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 5
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving
the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
that are greater than 500 HP and are located at an area source must
continuously monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an
oxidation catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop
across the catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation
catalyst is not being used on the engine, the owner or operator must
continuously monitor and record the operating parameters (if any)
approved by the Administrator.
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
The following sections describe the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that are required under the final rule.
Owners and operators of existing stationary emergency RICE that do
not meet the requirements for non-emergency engines are required to
keep records of their hours of operation. Owners and operators of
existing stationary emergency RICE must install a non-resettable hour
meter on their engines to record the hours of operation of the engine.
Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for the purpose of
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are
recommended by the Federal, State or local government, the
manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the
engine. Maintenance checks and readiness testing of such units are
limited to 100 hours per year. There is no time limit on the use of
emergency stationary engines in emergency situations; however, the
owner or operator is required to record the length of operation and the
reason the engine was in operation during that time. Records must be
maintained documenting why the engine was operating to ensure the 100
hours per year limit for maintenance and testing operation is not
exceeded. In addition, owners and operators are allowed to operate
their stationary emergency RICE for non-emergency purposes for 50 hours
per year, but those 50 hours are counted towards the total 100 hours
provided for operation other than for true emergencies. The 50 hours
per year for non-emergency purposes cannot be used to generate income
for a facility, for example, to supply power to an electric grid or
otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another
entity. However, owners and operators may operate the emergency engine
for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of a demand response program
if the regional transmission organization or equivalent balancing
authority and transmission operator has determined there are emergency
conditions that could lead to a potential electrical blackout, for
example unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy
deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. The engine may not be
operated for more than 30 minutes prior to the time when the emergency
condition is expected to occur, and the engine operation must be
terminated immediately after the facility is notified that the
emergency condition is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per year of
demand response operation are counted as part of the 50 hours of
operation per year provided for non-emergency situations. Owners and
operators must keep records showing how they were notified of the
emergency condition and by whom, and the time that the engine was
operated as part of demand response.
Owners and operators of existing stationary CI RICE located at area
sources that are subject to management practices as shown in Table 2 of
this preamble are required to keep records that show that management
practices that are required are being met. These records must include,
at a minimum: Oil and filter change dates and corresponding hour on the
hour meter; inspection and replacement dates for air cleaners, hoses,
and belts; and records of other emission-related repairs and
maintenance performed.
Owners and operators of existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE
greater than 300 HP must keep records of the manufacturer's recommended
maintenance procedures for the closed crankcase ventilation system or
open crankcase filtration system and records of the maintenance
performed on the system.
[[Page 9655]]
In terms of reporting requirements, owners and operators of
existing stationary RICE, except stationary RICE that are less than 100
HP, existing emergency stationary RICE, and existing stationary RICE
that are not subject to numerical emission standards, must submit all
of the applicable notifications as listed in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an initial
notification, notification of performance test, and a notification of
compliance for each stationary RICE which must comply with the
specified emission limitations.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
Most of the rationale used to develop the proposed rule remains the
same for the final rule. Therefore, the rationale previously provided
in the preamble to the proposed rule is not repeated in the final rule,
and the rationale sections of the rule, as proposed, should be referred
to. Major changes that have been made to the rule since proposal are
discussed in this section with rationale following in the Summary of
Responses to Major Comments section.
A. Applicability
EPA proposed to regulate HAP emissions from existing stationary
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all
existing stationary engines located at area sources. EPA also proposed
NESHAP for existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than
500 HP that are located at major sources.
In the final rule, EPA is only regulating HAP emissions from
existing stationary CI engines. EPA will address HAP emissions from
existing stationary SI engines in a separate rulemaking later this
year.
Another change from the proposal is that the final rule is not
applicable to existing stationary emergency engines at area sources
that are located at residential, commercial, or institutional
facilities. These engines are not subject to any requirements under the
final rule because they are not part of the regulated source category.
EPA has found that existing stationary emergency engines located at
residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area
sources were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy
inventory and were not included in the listing of urban area sources.
More information on this issue can be found in the memorandum entitled,
``Analysis of the Types of Engines Used to Estimate the CAA Section
112(k) Area Source Inventory for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines,'' available from the rulemaking docket.
B. Final Emission Standards
1. Existing Stationary CI Engines <100 HP Located at Major Sources
For the proposed rule, EPA required existing stationary engines
less than 50 HP that are located at major sources to meet a
formaldehyde emission standard. EPA is not finalizing a formaldehyde
emission standard for stationary CI engines less than 50 HP, but is
instead requiring compliance with a work practice. In addition, in
light of several comments asserting that the level at which we
subcategorized small engines at major sources was inappropriate, EPA is
finalizing a work practice standard for engines less than 100 HP.
In the proposed rule, existing stationary CI engines less than 100
HP located at major sources were required to meet a 40 ppmvd CO at 15
percent oxygen (O2) standard. In the final rule, all
existing stationary CI engines less than 100 HP located at major
sources must meet work practices. These work practices are described in
section III.C. of this preamble. EPA believes that work practices are
appropriate and justified for this group of stationary engines because
the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations. Further information on EPA's
decision can be found in section V.B. below and in the memorandum
entitled, ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary Non-
Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary Emergency CI
RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing Stationary CI RICE
Located at Area Sources,'' which is available from the rulemaking
docket.
2. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines 100<=HP<=300
EPA is finalizing a CO emission standard for existing stationary
non-emergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than
or equal to 300 HP located at major sources of 230 ppmvd CO at 15
percent O2 standard. EPA revised the proposed CO standard
for this group of engines based on additional information and data
received after the proposal, which led to a reevaluation of the MACT
floor for these stationary engines. A discussion of the final MACT
floor determination can be found in the memo entitled ``MACT Floor and
MACT Determination for Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE
Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP Located at Major Sources,'' which is
available from the rulemaking docket. All existing stationary CI
engines less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources, both
emergency and non-emergency, are subject to management practice
standards under the final rule, as was proposed.
3. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines >300 HP
EPA proposed that existing stationary non-emergency CI engines
greater than 300 HP meet a 4 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2
standard or a 90 percent CO reduction standard. Numerous commenters
indicated that EPA's dataset was insufficient and urged EPA to gather
more data to obtain a more complete representation of emissions from
existing stationary CI engines. Commenters also questioned the emission
standard setting approach that EPA used at proposal and claimed that
the proposed standards did not take into account emissions variability
and may not be achievable. For the final rule EPA has obtained
additional test data for existing stationary CI engines and has
included this additional data in the MACT floor analysis. EPA is also
using an approach that better considers emissions variability, as
discussed in V.B. below.
In the final rule, EPA is providing owners and operators the option
of meeting either a CO concentration or a CO percent reduction
standard. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP located at
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 49
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP located at
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 23
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. EPA's review of the data indicate
that it is appropriate to base the MACT standard on a reduction level
of 70 percent, which takes into account the variability of the emission
reduction efficiency of aftertreatment under various operational
conditions.
4. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines 100<=HP<=500 Located at
Major Sources
For existing stationary emergency engines located at major sources,
we proposed that these engines be subject to a 40 ppmvd CO at 15
percent O2 standard. In the final rule, existing stationary
emergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than
[[Page 9656]]
or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources must meet work
practices. These work practices are described in section III.C. of this
preamble. EPA believes that work practices are appropriate and
justified for this group of stationary engines because the application
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. Further information on EPA's decision can be
found in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for
Existing Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources,'' which is
available from the rulemaking docket.
5. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines >500 HP Located at Area
Sources
For existing stationary emergency engines located at area sources,
EPA reevaluated the information available for emergency engines and
considered extensive input received from industry and other groups who
asserted that the proposed standards were not GACT for emergency
engines at area sources. In the final rule, as discussed below in
section V.B., all existing stationary emergency CI engines located at
area sources must meet management practice standards.
C. Management Practices
EPA proposed management practices for several subcategories of
engines located at area sources. EPA explained that the proposed
management practices would be expected to ensure that emission control
systems are working properly and would help minimize HAP emissions from
the engines. EPA proposed specific maintenance practices and asked for
comments on the need and appropriateness for those procedures. Based on
feedback received during the public comment period, which included
information submitted in comment letters and additional information EPA
received following the close of the comment period from different
industry groups, EPA is finalizing management practices for existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources and all existing emergency stationary CI
engines located at area sources.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to
300 HP located at area sources are required to change the oil and
filter every 1,000 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. Existing emergency stationary CI engines located at area
sources are required under the final rule to change the oil and filter
every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first,
inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. EPA is adding an option for sources to use an oil change
analysis program to extend the oil change frequencies specified above.
The analysis program must at a minimum analyze the following three
parameters: Total Base Number, viscosity, and percent water content. If
the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the engine owner
or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of the limits are
exceeded, the engine owner or operator must change the oil before
continuing to use the engine. The condemning limits are as follows:
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total
Base Number of the oil when new; or
Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
Owners and operators of all engines subject to management practices
also have the option to work with State permitting authorities pursuant
to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for alternative maintenance
practices to be used instead of the specific maintenance practices
promulgated in this rule. The maintenance practices must be at least as
stringent as those specified in the final rule.
The final rule specifies that in situations where an emergency
engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut
down the engine in order to perform the work or management practice
requirements on the schedule required in the final rule, or if
performing the work or management practice on the required schedule
would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or
local law, the maintenance activity can be delayed until the emergency
is over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has
abated. The maintenance should be performed as soon as practicable
after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to
perform the work practice on the schedule required and the Federal,
State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
EPA proposed formaldehyde and CO emission standards for existing
stationary engines at major sources to apply during periods of startup
and malfunction. EPA also proposed certain standards for existing
stationary engines at area sources that would apply during startup and
malfunction. Based on various comments and concerns with the proposed
emission standards for periods of startup, EPA has determined that it
is not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would
apply during startup because the application of measurement methodology
to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations, as discussed in detail in section V.D.
As a result, EPA is promulgating operational standards during
startup that specify that owners and operators must limit the engine
startup time to no more than 30 minutes and must minimize the engine's
time spent at idle during startup. Based on information reviewed by
EPA, engine startup typically requires no more than 30 minutes. We
received comments indicating that there are conditions where it may
take more than 30 minutes to startup the engine, for example for cold
starts or where the ambient conditions are very cold. However,
commenters did not provide enough specificity in their comments, nor
did commenters provide data, to determine whether any scenarios were
appropriate to allow a longer startup period. Owners and operators of
engines at major sources have the option to petition the Administrator
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. Any petition
must be based on specific factual information indicating the reason the
alternative work practice is necessary for that engine and is no less
st