Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, 32612-32634 [2010-12911]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32612-32634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12911]





[[Page 32611]]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Part III











Environmental Protection Agency











-----------------------------------------------------------------------







40 CFR Parts 60, 1039, 1042, et al.







Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark 

Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule



Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / 

Proposed Rules



[[Page 32612]]





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



40 CFR Parts 60, 1039, 1042, 1065, and 1068



[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, FRL-9156-4]

RIN 2060-AP67




Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and 

Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines



AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



ACTION: Proposed rule.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



SUMMARY: EPA is proposing revisions to the standards of performance for 

new stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines under 

section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule would implement 

more stringent standards for stationary compression ignition engines 

with displacement greater than or equal to 10 liters per cylinder and 

less than 30 liters per cylinder, consistent with recent revisions to 

standards for similar mobile source marine engines. The action also 

proposes to provide additional flexibility to owners and operators of 

affected engines, and would correct minor mistakes in the initial 

standards of performance. In addition, the action proposes revisions to 

the requirements for engines with displacement at or above 30 liters 

per cylinder to align more closely with recent standards for similar 

mobile source marine engines, and for engines in rural portions of 

Alaska that are not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System. 

Finally, the proposal would make minor revisions to the standards of 

performance for new stationary spark ignition internal combustion 

engines to mirror certain revisions proposed for compression ignition 

engines, which would provide consistency where appropriate for the 

regulation of stationary internal combustion engines. The proposed 

standards would reduce nitrogen oxides by an estimated 1,100 tons per 

year, particulate matter by an estimated 38 tons per year, and 

hydrocarbons by an estimated 18 tons per year by the year 2030.



DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2010.

    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 

public hearing by June 28, 2010, a public hearing will be held 

beginning at 10 am on July 8, 2010. If you are interested in attending 

the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to 

verify whether or not a hearing will be held.



ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

OAR-2010-0295, by one of the following methods:

     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.

     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

     Fax: (202) 566-1741.

     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. 

EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 

of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 735 17th St., 

NW., Washington, DC 20503.

     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-

2010-0295. We also rely on documents in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0029 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 and incorporate those dockets into the 

record for this proposed rule. EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public docket without change and may 

be made available on-line at https://www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 

https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 

without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 

you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 

any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 

may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 

any defects or viruses.

    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 

EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle 

Park, NC or an alternate site nearby.

    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295. All documents in the docket are listed in 

the https://www.regulations.gov index. We also rely on documents in 

Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190, and 

incorporate those dockets into the record for this proposed rule. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available either electronically in 

https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. EPA, 

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:

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 

by this action include:



[[Page 32613]]







------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  Examples of regulated

            Category                NAICS \1\            entities

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any manufacturer that produces             2211  Electric power

 or any industry using a                          generation,

 stationary internal combustion                   transmission, or

 engine as defined in the                         distribution.

 proposed rule.

                                         622110  Medical and surgical

                                                  hospitals.

                                         335312  Motor and generator

                                                  manufacturing.

                                          33391  Pump and compressor

                                                  manufacturing.

                                         333992  Welding and soldering

                                                  equipment

                                                  manufacturing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 in Sec.  60.4200 of the 

proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 

an electronic copy of the proposed rule will be available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN). Following 

signature, EPA will post a copy of the proposed rule on the TTN's 

policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.



What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?



    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. Melanie King, c/o 

OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 

does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 

2.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to:

    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    b. Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 

substitute language for your requested changes.

    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used.

    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 

arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 

reproduced.

    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 

suggest alternatives.

    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 

profanity or personal threats.

    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 

identified.

    Docket. The docket number for the proposed new source performance 

standards (NSPS) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295. We will also 

rely on documents in Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029 and EPA-HQ-OAR-

2003-0190.

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in the preamble.



I. Background

    A. Initial New Source Performance Standards

    B. Events Following Promulgation of Initial NSPS

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    A. Standards for New Engines With Displacement Greater Than or 

Equal to 10 l/cyl and Less Than 30 l/cyl

    B. Compliance Requirements for Owners and Operators

    C. Temporary Replacement Engines

    D. Standards for Engines With Displacement Greater Than or Equal 

to 30 l/cyl

    E. Requirements for Engines Located in Rural Alaska

    F. Reconstruction

    G. Minor Corrections and Revisions

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    A. What are the air quality impacts?

    B. What are the cost impacts?

    C. What are the economic impacts?

    D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 

impacts?

IV. Solicitation of Public Comments and Participation

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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 Risks and Safety Risks

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations



I. Background



A. Initial New Source Performance Standards



    This action proposes revisions to NSPS for new compression ignition 

(CI) stationary internal combustion engines (ICE). The NSPS were 

initially published on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39153). New source 

performance standards implement section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), and are issued for categories of sources which cause, or 

contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The standards apply 

to new stationary sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose 

construction, reconstruction, or modification begins after a standard 

for those sources is proposed.

    For the first time, the NSPS put Federal restrictions on emissions 

of particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), non-

methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and carbon monoxide (CO) from new 

stationary CI engines. The NSPS also restricted the level of sulfur 

permitted in diesel fuel used in new stationary CI engines. The



[[Page 32614]]



levels in the NSPS were generally based on standards promulgated in 

previous rules for similar nonroad (i.e., mobile off-highway) engines. 

For larger engines with displacement greater than or equal to 10 liters 

per cylinder (l/cyl) and less than 30 l/cyl, the levels were based on 

standards for similar marine engines. EPA noted in the proposed rule 

(70 FR 39870) that it was reviewing the possibility of promulgating 

more stringent standards for such marine engines in the near future and 

would review whether to revise the standards for stationary engines 

with displacement greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/

cyl when the more stringent standards for marine engines with 

displacement greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/cyl 

were promulgated. For engines with displacement greater than or equal 

to 30 l/cyl, the standards were based on evidence collected for those 

specified engines.

    The standards for emergency engines were less stringent than those 

for non-emergency engines, given questions regarding the use of 

emission reduction aftertreatment technologies for such engines and the 

fact that such engines are rarely used, except in case of emergency. 

EPA also promulgated less stringent standards, and no fuel sulfur 

restrictions, for engines in U.S. Pacific territories where low sulfur 

fuel may be difficult to receive. However, these less stringent 

standards did not apply to engines at or above 30 l/cyl. Similarly, EPA 

delayed the low sulfur fuels requirement until December 1, 2010, for 

rural areas of Alaska not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System 

(FAHS), and allowed the Governor of Alaska to submit an alternative 

plan for implementing the NSPS for public utilities located in these 

rural areas of Alaska.

    EPA estimated that the NSPS would reduce NOX emissions 

from stationary CI ICE by an estimated 38,000 tons per year (tpy), PM 

emissions by about 3,000 tpy, NMHC emissions by about 600 tpy, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions by an estimated 9,000 tpy, and CO 

emissions by approximately 18,000 tpy in the year 2015. EPA estimated 

that emissions of hazardous air pollutants would be reduced by 

approximately 93 tons in the year 2015. EPA estimated the NSPS would 

reduce NOX emissions from stationary CI ICE by an estimated 

270,000 tpy, PM emissions by about 17,000 tpy, NMHC emissions by about 

8,000 tpy, SO2 emissions by an estimated 24,000 tpy, and CO 

emissions by approximately 95,000 tpy in the year 2030.

    For the vast majority of engines, compliance requirements, 

particularly testing requirements, are primarily geared towards the 

manufacturers of the engines, not the owners and operators of engines. 

The engines had to be tested, certified and labeled prior to 

installation. Owners and operators are, however, required to operate 

and maintain their engines according to the written instructions of the 

engine manufacturers or according to procedures developed by the owner/

operators and approved by the manufacturer.



B. Events Following Promulgation of Initial NSPS



    Following promulgation of the initial NSPS, EPA received several 

comments from interested parties regarding aspects of the final rule. 

In particular, engine manufacturers stated their belief that the 

standards promulgated for engines with displacement greater than or 

equal to 30 l/cyl were not feasible, especially those located at areas 

without requirements for low sulfur diesel fuel. Engine manufacturers 

also noted some minor errors in the standards as published.

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) petitioned for review of the 

final NSPS, and stated to EPA that, among other concerns, API believed 

that the compliance requirements did not allow owner and operators 

enough flexibility to use operation and maintenance procedures, 

different from those recommended by manufacturers, that would provide 

good emission control practice for minimizing emissions. API also had 

other comments regarding the final rule, including concern regarding 

use of the term ``useful life'' in the stationary engine context, and 

concern that temporary portable engines would be treated as subject to 

NSPS requirements beyond the requirements for nonroad engines.

    On January 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule containing separate 

standards of performance for stationary spark ignition (SI) engines. 

(73 FR 3567) While these regulations are distinct from the standards of 

performance for CI engines, certain aspects of these regulations, 

particularly regarding compliance and definitions, are intended to be 

consistent with the regulations promulgated for CI engines.

    Additionally, on June 30, 2008, EPA published more stringent 

standards for new locomotives and for new CI marine vessels under 40 

CFR parts 1033 and 1042, respectively, including marine vessel engines 

with displacement greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/

cyl. (73 FR 37095) The rule promulgated two new tiers of standards for 

newly manufactured marine CI engines at or above 600 kilowatt (KW) (800 

horsepower (HP)), the second of which was based on the application of 

catalytic aftertreatment technology.

    Further, on April 30, 2010, EPA promulgated final fuel requirements 

and standards regulating emissions from marine engines with 

displacement above 30 l/cyl. (75 FR 22896) These requirements are 

equivalent to the limits adopted by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) in October 2008 as an amendment to Annex VI of the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(also called MARPOL Annex VI).

    Finally, on October 31, 2008, the State of Alaska, pursuant to the 

provision in the final rule allowing it to request alternative 

provisions for rural Alaska, requested that EPA make certain changes in 

its requirements to account for circumstances in rural Alaska that are 

different from those in the rest of the United States. Alaska's 

specific recommendations are discussed below.



II. Summary of Proposed Amendments



A. Standards for New Engines With Displacement Greater Than or Equal to 

10 l/cyl and Less Than 30 l/cyl



    We are proposing to incorporate the recently-promulgated standards 

for new marine engines into our standards for new stationary engines 

with displacement greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/

cyl. The standards were found to be feasible for the marine engines 

covered by those requirements. As we discussed in the original NSPS 

final rule, stationary engines in this displacement range are similar 

in design to marine CI engines and are generally certified to marine 

standards. EPA is, therefore, basing the proposed revised standards for 

non-emergency stationary CI ICE with a displacement between 10 l/cyl 

and 30 l/cyl on the technologies identified in the recent rulemaking to 

be used to meet the emission standards for marine CI engines.

    The proposed standards would not take effect until 2013, at the 

earliest. The standards are summarized in the tables in this preamble. 

The first tier of standards divides these engines by displacement. The 

second divides the engines by maximum engine power.



[[Page 32615]]







 Table II-1--First Tier Standards for Stationary CI Engines With a Displacement >=10 and <30 Liters per Cylinder

                                                       \a\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                             PM g/HP-hr  (g/   NOX + HC \b\ g/

       Engine size--liters per cylinder, rated power             KW-hr)       HP-hr  (g/KW-hr)        Year

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.0 <= displacement <15.0, <3,700 KW.....................       0.10 (0.14)         4.6 (6.2)              2013

15.0 <= displacement <20.0, <3,700 KW.....................   \c\ 0.20 (0.27)         5.2 (7.0)              2014

20.0 <= displacement <25.0, <3,700 KW.....................       0.20 (0.27)         7.3 (9.8)              2014

25.0 <= displacement <30.0, <3,700 KW.....................       0.20 (0.27)        8.2 (11.0)              2014

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\a\ See note (c) of Table II-2 for optional standards.

\b\ NOX + HC standards do not apply to 2,000 KW to 3,700 KW engines.

\c\ For engines below 3,300 KW in this group, the PM standard is 0.25 g/HP-hr (0.34 g/KW-hr).





Table II-2--Second Tier Standards for Stationary CI Engines With a Displacement >=10 and <30 Liters per Cylinder

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           PM g/HP-hr  (g/   NOX + HC \b\ g/   HC g/HP-hr  (g/

        Engine size, rated power               KW-hr)       HP-hr  (g/KW-hr)       KW-hr)             Year

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>= 3,700 KW.............................    \a\0.09 (0.12)         1.3 (1.8)       0.14 (0.19)          \c\ 2014

                                               0.04 (0.06)         1.3 (1.8)       0.14 (0.19)          b c 2016

2,000 <= KW < 3,700.....................       0.03 (0.04)         1.3 (1.8)       0.14 (0.19)          c d 2014

1,400 <= KW < 2,000.....................       0.03 (0.04)         1.3 (1.8)       0.14 (0.19)          \c\ 2016

600 <= KW < 1,400.......................       0.03 (0.04)         1.3 (1.8)       0.14 (0.19)          \b\ 2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\a\ This standard is 0.19 g/HP-hr (0.25 g/KW-hr) for engines with 15-30 liter/cylinder displacement.

\b\ Optional compliance start dates can be used within these model years.

\c\ Option: 1st Tier PM/NOX + HC at 0.10/5.8 g/HP-hr (0.14/7.8 g/KW-hr) in 2012, and 2nd Tier in 2015.

\d\ The 1st Tier PM standards continue to apply for these engines in model years 2014 and 2015 only.



    The first tier of standards is based on engine-based technologies 

already in use or expected to be used for other mobile and stationary 

engines (e.g., improved fuel injection, engine mapping, and calibration 

optimization), as well as the use of ultra low sulfur (i.e., 15 parts 

per million (ppm) sulfur) diesel (ULSD). The second tier of standards 

is expected to be met with the use of catalytic exhaust aftertreatment 

that have already been used for other similar mobile and stationary 

engines, like catalyzed diesel particulate filters (CDPF) and selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR).



B. Compliance Requirements for Owners and Operators



    In the original final NSPS, EPA required all engines to be 

installed, configured, operated, and maintained according to the 

specifications and instructions provided by the engine manufacturer. 

EPA also allowed the option for owners and operators to follow 

procedures developed by the owner or operator that have been approved 

by the engine manufacturer for cases where site-specific conditions may 

require changes to the manufacturer's typical guidelines.

    Several parties objected to this requirement. According to the 

parties, this requirement restricts owners and operators from using the 

most appropriate methods for installing, operating and maintaining 

engines in the field. The parties claim that owners and operators are 

in the best position to determine the most appropriate method of 

installing, operating and maintaining engines in the field and have 

more experience in doing so than engine manufacturers, and that 

operation and maintenance provisions in manufacturer manuals are often 

too stringent and inflexible to be required in binding regulations.

    Based on the comments and information received during and after the 

rulemakings for both the CI and SI NSPS, EPA believes it is not 

appropriate to require owners and operators to follow manufacturer 

operation and maintenance procedures without allowing alternative 

options for owners and operators. Therefore, we are proposing to revise 

the regulations to allow owners and operators to develop their own 

operation and maintenance plans as an alternative to following 

manufacturer operation and maintenance procedures. However, if an 

owner/operator decides to take this approach, EPA will need greater 

assurance that the engine is meeting emission requirements. Thus, 

owner/operators using this approach will generally be subject to 

further testing of their engines and will be required to keep 

maintenance plans and records. EPA will consider such engines to be 

operating in a non-certified manner. Engines greater than 500 HP will 

be required to conduct a performance test within 1 year of startup (or 

within 1 year of changing the manufacturer's recommended configuration 

or settings for the engine) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

standards, and will also have to conduct subsequent performance testing 

every 8,760 hours or 3 years (whichever comes first) thereafter. These 

engines will in addition be required to keep a maintenance plan and 

records of conducted maintenance.

    Engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than or equal to 

500 HP will be required to conduct a performance test within 1 year of 

startup (or within 1 year of changing the manufacturer's recommended 

configuration or settings for the engine) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards and will in addition be required to keep a 

maintenance plan and records of conducted maintenance. Engines below 

100 HP operating in a non-certified manner will not have to conduct 

further performance testing, but are required to keep a maintenance 

plan and records.

    Owners and operators will also have the ability to adjust engine 

settings outside of manufacturer settings as long as they ensure the 

engines comply with the standards at those settings with a performance 

test.

    Parties also noted that the operation and maintenance requirements 

extended beyond emission-related operation and maintenance and



[[Page 32616]]



extended to operation and maintenance of all aspects of the engine, 

which the parties believed should be beyond the scope of the 

regulation. EPA agrees that the operation and maintenance requirements 

of the NSPS should be restricted to emission-related operation and 

maintenance, and is proposing to revise the regulations accordingly.

    Finally, one party has reported that owners and operators of 

engines in marine locations often need to use engines that meet the 

marine nonroad engine standards, but that the current NSPS requires the 

engine, if the engine is on a stationary platform rather than a ship, 

to meet the standards for land-based engines, rather than marine 

engines. EPA has not proposed to change the current regulation, but 

requests comment on the need for stationary engines in marine offshore 

settings to use engines meeting the marine engine standards, rather 

than land-based engine standards. Based on the comments received, EPA 

may decide to revise this requirement in the final rule.



C. Temporary Replacement Engines



    EPA received comments during and after the initial CI NSPS rule and 

during the SI NSPS rule indicating that there was some confusion 

regarding the status of temporary engines (i.e., generally engines in 

one location for less than 1 year) under EPA's regulations. Further, 

there was concern that for those temporary engines that were considered 

stationary under the definitions of stationary and nonroad engine, 

because they replaced other stationary engines during periods when the 

main engines were off-line (e.g., for maintenance work), owners and 

operators of major sources would have little or no ability to oversee 

the operations of these temporary engines, as they were generally owned 

and maintained by other entities.

    EPA notes that except for certain instances (e.g., engines at 

seasonal sources or engines that replace stationary engines at a site), 

engines in one location for less than 1 year are generally considered 

to be mobile nonroad engines under EPA's regulatory definitions of 

nonroad engine and stationary engine, and, therefore, the NSPS and 

other regulations applicable to stationary engines are not applicable 

to such engines. Examples of such nonroad engines are engines that are 

brought to a major source stationary source for less than 1 year for 

purposes of general maintenance or construction.

    Portable engines that replace existing stationary engines on a 

temporary basis are considered stationary engines. This provision 

allows the permitting authority to count the emissions of the temporary 

unit in the emissions from the stationary source, as it would for the 

permanent unit. This prevents sources from avoiding the counting of 

such units in its projected or actual emissions. EPA agrees with 

comments that with regard to temporary replacement engines, which are 

generally portable and moved from place to place, it is most 

appropriate that these engines, though considered stationary, should be 

allowed under the NSPS to meet requirements for mobile nonroad engines. 

These sources are not under the long-term control (or in many cases the 

short-term control) of the local source, and, therefore, it is 

appropriate to hold them to the requirements for similar sources that 

are mobile in character. EPA also notes that under the pre-existing 

general provisions for 40 CFR part 60, the fact that an engine moves 

from place to place does not, by the sole basis of that movement, make 

the engine a ``new'' engine for the purposes of the NSPS.



D. Standards for Engines With Displacement Greater Than or Equal to 30 

l/cyl



    In the final NSPS, EPA required owners and operators of stationary 

CI ICE with a displacement of greater than or equal to 30 l/cyl to 

reduce NOX emissions by 90 percent or more, or alternatively 

they had to limit the emissions of NOX in the stationary CI 

internal combustion engine exhaust to 1.6 grams per KW-hour (g/KW-hr) 

(1.2 grams per HP-hour (g/HP-hr)). They were also required to reduce PM 

emissions by 60 percent or more, or alternatively they had to limit the 

emissions of PM in the stationary CI internal combustion engine exhaust 

to 0.15 g/KW-hr (0.11 g/HP-hr). These standards were applicable in all 

areas, including areas in the Pacific (e.g., Guam) and rural Alaska 

that were exempted, at least temporarily, from using low sulfur fuel. 

The standards were also applicable to all engines in this displacement 

category, whether they were used for emergency or non-emergency 

purposes.

    Following completion of the original rule, EPA received comments 

from engine manufacturers stating that the standards would be 

infeasible in areas where low sulfur fuel was not used. The engine 

manufacturers recommended less stringent standards for areas where low 

sulfur fuel is not required. EPA also received later comments 

indicating that the standards were also infeasible for engines in areas 

with access to lower sulfur fuel, and that the standards should instead 

be harmonized with the IMO standards for similar engines in marine 

vessels. These comments also requested that EPA take the same approach 

to emergency engines with displacement greater than or equal to 30 l/

cyl as EPA takes for smaller emergency engines. For other emergency 

engines, EPA promulgated emission standards that do not require the use 

of aftertreatment, given the limited use of the engines, the 

ineffectiveness of the aftertreatment during startup, and the need for 

safe, reliable and immediate operation of the engine during 

emergencies. The comments state that engines of this size have been 

used as emergency generators at nuclear power plants in order to assure 

the safe shut-down of the reactor in case of emergency due to their 

excellent performance and reliability.

    Regarding the NOX standard for these engines, EPA agrees 

that it is appropriate to adjust the stringency of the NOX 

standard to match the worldwide NOX standard approved in the 

IMO's Annex VI and promulgated by EPA for marine engines with 

displacement above 30 l/cyl. While the technology required by the 

existing NSPS has been used on other stationary engines, EPA realizes 

the need to provide lead time for the technology to transfer to the 

largest of engines. The final IMO NOX standard is comparable 

to the existing NSPS NOX standard, but provides more 

leadtime for final implementation. Revising the standard to match the 

standard for marine engines allows manufacturers to design a single 

type of engine for both uses. This standard has been substantially 

reviewed by EPA and other governments and has been found to be feasible 

in the time provided. For engines installed prior to January 1, 2012, 

the standard is proposed to be 17.0 g/KW-hr (12.7 g/HP-hr) when maximum 

engine speed is less than 130 revolutions per minute (rpm); 45 [middot] 

n-0.2 g/KW-hr (34 [middot] n-0.2 g/KW-hr) when n 

(maximum engine speed) is 130 or more but less than 2,000 rpm; 9.8 g/

KW-hr (7.3 g/HP-hr) when maximum engine speed is 2,000 rpm or more. For 

engines installed after January 1, 2012, we are proposing a more 

stringent standard of 14.4 g/KW-hr (10.7 g/HP-hr) when maximum engine 

speed is less than 130 rpm; 44 [middot] n-0.23 g/KW-hr (33 

[middot] n-0.23 g/KW-hr) where n (maximum engine speed) is 

130 or more but less than 2,000 rpm; and 7.7 g/KW-hr (5.7 g/HP-hr) 

where maximum engine speed is greater than or equal to 2,000 rpm. For 

engines installed after January 1, 2016, we are proposing a more 

stringent



[[Page 32617]]



standard that presumes the use of aftertreatment. The levels are 

proposed to be 3.4 g/KW-hr (2.5 g/HP-hr) when maximum engine speed is 

less than 130 rpm; 9.0 [middot] n-0.20 g/KW-hr (6.7 [middot] 

n-0.20 g/KW-hr) where n (maximum engine speed) is 130 or 

more but less than 2,000 rpm; and 2.0 g/KW-hr (1.5 g/HP-hr) where 

maximum engine speed is greater than or equal to 2,000 rpm.

    For engines installed in Pacific island areas that are not required 

to use lower sulfur fuel, while EPA believes that SCR can be installed 

on such engines even where high sulfur fuel is being used, EPA agrees 

that the use of high sulfur fuel, and the presence of other impurities 

in this type of fuel (i.e., heavy fuel oil), as well as different 

density and viscosity, make it difficult to achieve similar results 

from SCR as would occur with lower sulfur fuel. Maintenance of high 

NOX reduction levels is also more difficult when using high 

sulfur fuel. The use of higher sulfur heavy fuel oil also increases 

engine-out NOX emissions because of the increased levels of 

contaminants in the fuel. EPA also notes that the areas in question do 

not have any significant ozone problem. We, therefore, are proposing 

not to require the more stringent standards that would otherwise apply 

beginning in 2016 in these areas.

    Similarly, we are proposing not to require the more stringent, 

aftertreatment-forcing NOX standards for emergency engines 

with displacement at or above 30 l/cyl. As the commenters noted, EPA 

did not require aftertreatment-forcing requirements for other emergency 

engines due to the limited use of the engines, the ineffectiveness of 

the aftertreatment during startup, and the need for safe, reliable and 

immediate operation of the engine during emergencies. EPA agrees that 

similar concerns are present for emergency engines in this power 

category.

    EPA is also modifying its fuel requirements for engines with 

displacement at or above 30 l/cyl. The final rule promulgated by EPA 

for marine engines with displacement above 30 l/cyl required those 

engines to use fuel meeting a 1,000 ppm sulfur level beginning in 2014, 

and also made other revisions to the mobile source fuel requirements 

that will likely have the effect of making 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel the 

outlet for diesel fuel that does not meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard 

generally required for mobile source fuel. Therefore, EPA is revising 

the fuel sulfur standards for stationary CI engines with displacement 

at or above 30 l/cyl to a 1,000 ppm sulfur level beginning in 2014.

    EPA agrees that the numerical standards for PM promulgated in the 

final rule would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve using 

high sulfur fuel. EPA therefore agrees that it is appropriate to revise 

the concentration limit for PM for stationary CI ICE with a 

displacement of greater than or equal to 30 l/cyl in areas where low 

sulfur fuel is not required. EPA is proposing a standard of 0.40 g/KW-

hr (0.30 g/HP-hr). Given the substantial health concerns associated 

with diesel PM emissions, EPA believes it is appropriate to require 

this level for all engines where low sulfur fuel is not required. 

Similarly, we are proposing to revise the PM standard for emergency 

engines to 0.40 g/kW-hr (0.30 g/HP-hr), for the reasons provided above 

regarding NOX standards for such engines.

    EPA is not proposing to change the PM standard for non-emergency 

engines in areas where the lower sulfur fuel is available. As EPA 

explained in the original NSPS, EPA believes this standard is 

achievable for engines using existing technology and low sulfur fuel. 

The substantial health risks associated with diesel PM require that 

these stringent standards remain in place.



E. Requirements for Engines Located in Rural Alaska



    In the initial final NSPS, EPA agreed to delay the sulfur 

requirements for diesel fuel intended for stationary ICE in rural areas 

of Alaska not accessible by the FAHS (``rural Alaska'') until December 

1, 2010, except that any 2011 model year and later stationary CI 

engines operating in rural Alaska prior to December 1, 2010, would be 

required to meet the 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur requirement for 

diesel fuel. This approach was consistent with the approach that was 

used for nonroad and highway engines in rural Alaska. EPA also included 

a special section in the final rule that specified that until December 

1, 2010, owners and operators of stationary CI engines located in 

Alaska should refer to 40 CFR part 69 to determine the diesel fuel 

requirements applicable to such engines.

    In addition, the final regulations included language that allows 

Alaska to submit for EPA approval through rulemaking process an 

alternative plan for implementing the requirements of this regulation 

for public-sector electrical utilities located in rural areas of Alaska 

not accessible by the FAHS. The alternative plan must be based on the 

requirements of section 111 of the CAA including any increased risks to 

human health and the environment and must also be based on the unique 

circumstances related to remote power generation, climatic conditions, 

and serious economic impacts resulting from implementation of the final 

NSPS.

    EPA also included an option in the final rule for owners and 

operators of pre-2011 model year engines located in remote areas of 

Alaska to petition the Administrator to use any fuels mixed with used 

oil that do not meet the fuel requirements in Sec.  60.4207 of the 

final rule beyond the required fuel deadlines. The owner or operator 

must show that there is no other place to burn the used oil. Each 

petition, if approved, is valid for a period of up to 6 months.

    EPA communicated with officials from the State of Alaska on several 

occasions following the promulgation of the final rule, and gave the 

State of Alaska an extension from the original deadline of January 11, 

2008, to provide its alternative plan for rural Alaska to EPA. On 

October 31, 2008, EPA received Alaska's request for several revisions 

to the NSPS as it pertains to engines located in the rural part of 

Alaska not served by the FAHS.

    In particular, the State of Alaska requested the following:

     Allow NSPS owner-operator requirements to apply only to 

model year 2011 and later engines.

     Maintain a December 1, 2010 deadline for transition of 

regulated engines to ULSD.

     Authorize continued use of single circuit jacketwater 

marine diesel engines for prime power applications.

     Remove limitations on using fuels mixed with used 

lubricating oil that do not meet the fuel requirements of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart IIII.

     Review emission control design requirements needed to meet 

new NSPS emission standards, including the possibility of removing or 

delaying emissions standards requiring advanced exhaust gas emissions 

aftertreatment technologies until the technology is proven for remote 

and arctic applications.

    EPA agrees that the circumstances in rural Alaska require special 

rules. EPA is, therefore, proposing several amendments for engines used 

in rural Alaska:

    1. Exempting all pre-2011 model year engines from diesel fuel 

sulfur requirements;

    2. Allowing owners and operators of stationary CI engines located 

in rural areas of Alaska to use engines certified to marine engine 

standards, rather than land-based nonroad engine standards;

    3. Removing requirements to use aftertreatment devices for 

NOX, in particular, SCR, for engines used in rural Alaska.



[[Page 32618]]



    In proposing these revisions, EPA notes the following information 

provided by the State of Alaska. In general, the State notes that over 

180 rural communities in Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS 

rely on diesel engines and fuel for electricity. These communities are 

scattered over long distances in remote areas and are not connected to 

population centers by road or power grid. These communities are located 

in the most severe arctic environments in the United States.

    Regarding the request that owners and operator requirements apply 

only to model year 2011 and later engines, the State of Alaska focused 

on two particular requirements for pre-2011 engines: the requirement 

that pre-2011 engines that are manufactured after April 1, 2006 use 

ULSD beginning on December 1, 2010; and the requirement that after 

December 31, 2008, owners and operators may not install engines that do 

not meet the applicable requirements for 2007 model year engines.

    The State of Alaska noted that Alaska village power plants are 

typically operated by a single part-time operator with an alternate, 

that there is a high rate of turnover among plant operators, and that 

operators have limited training, expertise or resources. The State of 

Alaska notes that pre-2011 engines will all be fueled, prior to 

December 1, 2011, with the same fuel. The State of Alaska believes that 

it would greatly simplify operations to coordinate the fuel 

requirements with the introduction of 2011 model year engines, rather 

than retroactively requiring some, but not all, earlier engines to meet 

the fuel requirements. It would also facilitate the smoother transition 

to ULSD fuel, rather than requiring numerous engines to all meet the 

requirements at the same time. The State of Alaska noted that there is 

no technological requirement for pre-model year 2011 engines to use 

aftertreatment, and thus no technological need to use ULSD. EPA agrees 

that the requested revision will reduce the complexity of the 

regulations and that ULSD is not technologically necessary prior to 

model year 2011. EPA also notes that the requirement to use ULSD for 

2011 and later model year engines will eventually lead to a complete 

turnover of the fuel used in the remote villages. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing this revision.

    The State of Alaska notes that the planning, construction and 

operation of engines in rural Alaska is complex. The timeframe for 

these projects, which are coordinated among several governmental 

entities, typically exceeds 3 years. The State of Alaska notes that 

several projects that were designed and funded based on pre-2007 model 

year engines will not be installed prior to December 31, 2008. 

Therefore, the State of Alaska requests that the deadline be moved to 

December 2010. While EPA understands that some extra time may be needed 

to allow for these pre-existing projects to go forward with pre-2007 

engines, EPA does not believe the State of Alaska has justified a 2-

year extension, beyond the 2 years already provided in the regulations. 

However, EPA believes that a 1-year extension would be appropriate. EPA 

is, therefore, proposing a 1-year extension for owners and operators in 

rural Alaska to install pre-2007 model year engines.

    Regarding its request for continued use of single circuit 

jacketwater marine diesel engines for prime power applications, the 

State of Alaska notes that rural villages in Alaska use combined heat 

and power cogeneration plants, which are vital to their economy, given 

the high cost of fuel and the substantial need for heat in that 

climate. Heat recovery systems are used with diesel engines in rural 

communities to provide heat to community facilities and schools. 

Marine-jacketed diesel engines are used wherever possible because of 

their superior heat recovery and thermal efficiency. The State of 

Alaska has noticed great reductions in heat recovery when using Tier 3 

non-marine engines. The State notes that reductions in fuel efficiency 

will lead to greater fuel use and greater emissions from burning extra 

heating oil. EPA agrees with the State that there are significant 

benefits from using marine engines, and is proposing a revision that 

will allow engines in rural Alaska to use marine-certified engines. 

However, as the State of Alaska notes, marine-certified engines, 

particularly those below 800 HP, are not required to meet more 

stringent requirements for reduction of PM emissions, which is the most 

significant pollutant of concern in these areas. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to require that owners and operators of engines manufactured 

in model years that would otherwise be certified to Tier 4 PM standards 

(e.g., model years 2011 and later for engines greater than or equal to 

130 KW (175 HP) and less than or equal to 560 KW (750 HP)) must either 

be certified to Tier 4 standards (whether land-based nonroad or marine) 

or must install PM reduction technologies on their engines to achieve 

at least 85 percent reduction in PM.

    Regarding the issue of using aftertreatment technologies that the 

State of Alaska says has not been tested in remote arctic climates, EPA 

notes that the State of Alaska is particularly concerned with 

NOX standards that would likely entail the use of SCR in 

rural Alaska. NOX reductions are particularly important in 

areas where ozone is a concern, because NOX is a precursor 

to ozone. However, the State of Alaska, and rural Alaska in particular, 

does not have any significant ozone problems. Moreover, the use of SCR 

entails the supply, storage and use of a chemical reductant, usually 

urea, that needs to be used properly in order to achieve the expected 

emissions reductions, and that may have additional operational problems 

in remote arctic climates. As noted above, these villages are not 

accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System and 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 and they rely on stationary 

diesel engines and fuel for electricity and heating, and these engines 

need to be in working condition, particularly in the winter. While the 

availability of reductant is not a problem in the areas on the highway 

system, its availability in remote villages, particularly in the early 

years of the Tier 4 program, may be an issue, which is notable given 

the importance of the stationary engines in these villages. 

Furthermore, the costs for the acquisition, storage and handling of the 

chemical reductant would be greater than for engines located elsewhere 

in the United States due to the remote location and severe arctic 

climate of the villages. In order to maintain proper availability of 

the chemical reductant during the harsh winter months, new heated 

storage vessels may be needed at each engine facility, further 

increasing the compliance costs for these remote villages. Given the 

issues that would need to be addressed if SCR were required, and the 

associated costs of this technology when analyzed under NSPS 

guidelines, EPA understands the State of Alaska's argument that it is 

inappropriate to require such standards for stationary engines in rural 

Alaska.\1\ Therefore, EPA is proposing not to require owners and 

operators of new stationary engines to meet the Tier 4 standards for 

NOX in these areas and is soliciting comment on this 

decision. However, owners and operators of 2011 and later model year 

engines that do not



[[Page 32619]]



meet the Tier 4 PM standards would be required to use PM 

aftertreatment, as discussed above. The use of PM aftertreatment will 

also achieve reductions in CO and hydrocarbons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    \1\ Note that this action applies to stationary engines only; it 

is unlikely that such an approach would be appropriate for mobile 

engines, given that they are less permanent in a village and can 

move in and out of areas as work requires, and because EPA has less 

ability to enforce such an approach for mobile sources, where EPA 

does not regulate the owner or operator directly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Finally, regarding allowing owners and operators to blend up to 

1.75 percent used oil into the fuel system, the State notes that there 

are no permitted used oil disposal facilities in rural Alaskan 

communities. The State believes that it has developed a cost-effective 

and reliable used-oil blending system that is currently being used in 

many rural Alaskan communities, disposing of the oil in an 

environmentally beneficial manner and capturing the energy content of 

the used oil. The absence of allowable blending would, according to the 

State, necessitate the shipping out of the used oil and would risk 

improper disposal and storage, as well as spills.

    According to the State, blending waste oil at 1.75 percent or less 

will keep the fuel within American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) specifications if the sulfur content of the waste oil is below 

200 ppm. The State acknowledges the need for engines equipped with 

aftertreatment devices to use fuel meeting the sulfur requirements.

    EPA agrees that the limited blending of used oil into the diesel 

fuel used by stationary engines can be an environmentally beneficial 

manner of disposing of such oil and may be of little to no concern when 

kept within appropriate limits. In fact, in EPA's highway diesel 

regulations (40 CFR 80.522), we allow for the blending of used motor 

oil into fuel burned in highway engines if the engine was certified to 

the emission standards with the addition of the used oil, and if the 

oil is added in a manner consistent with the engine certificate. 

Nevertheless, EPA believes that there are certain issues that need to 

be further reviewed if EPA is to include in the final rule a provision 

allowing used oil to be mixed with diesel fuel in remote areas of 

Alaska. First, while any provision allowing used oil to be mixed with 

diesel fuel would need to be carefully circumscribed (e.g., the used 

oil could be no more than 1.75 percent of mixture and could not have a 

sulfur level above 200 ppm), EPA would like to have further information 

on whether, even at such circumscribed levels, mixing used oil into the 

fuel will have an effect on the operation or maintenance requirements 

for such engines, particularly engines using PM aftertreatment, and if 

so, how such changes will be managed by the operators.

    Second, on April 29, 2010, EPA proposed a set of regulatory actions 

under the CAA that address emissions from boilers, process heaters, and 

certain solid waste incinerators. On the same day, in a related action 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA proposed 

to define which non-hazardous secondary materials are ``solid waste'' 

for purposes of subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) of RCRA when burned in 

a combustion unit, since section 129(g)(5) of the CAA provides that 

``solid waste'' shall have the meaning established by the Administrator 

under RCRA. Under the proposed solid waste rule, used oil that does not 

meet the on-specification (``on-spec'') levels and properties of 40 CFR 

279.11 (``off-spec used oil'') would be considered a solid waste, 

unless it is processed to meet the on-spec used oil limits specified in 

40 CFR 279.11, and a combustion unit that burns off-spec used oil would 

be a solid waste incineration unit and would be subject to emission 

standards under section 129 of the CAA.

    Due to these issues, EPA believes that it would not be appropriate 

at this time to propose to allow the blending of used oil for 

stationary diesel engines under the NSPS. EPA solicits comment on 

whether to allow the blending of used oil into diesel fuel under the 

NSPS in rural areas of Alaska.



F. Reconstruction



    EPA is proposing to add a definition for ``reconstruct'' that is 

specific for the NSPS for stationary CI ICE and stationary SI ICE. EPA 

is also proposing to add provisions to the NSPS that require 

reconstructed engines to meet the emission standards for the model year 

in which the reconstruction occurs if the reconstructed engine meets 

any of the following criteria:

     The crankshaft is removed as part of the reconstruction; 

or

     The fixed capital cost of the new and refurbished 

components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable 

new engine; or

     The serial number of the engine is removed as part of the 

reconstruction; or

     The reconstructed engine consists of a previously used 

engine block with all new components.



The proposed rule also clarifies that the provisions for modified and 

reconstructed engines apply to anyone who modifies or reconstructs an 

engine, including engine owners/operators, engine manufacturers, and 

anyone else. The proposed rule also adds additional clarification 

regarding what standards are applicable for modified or reconstructed 

engines.



G. Minor Corrections and Revisions



    EPA is proposing several minor revisions in this rule to correct 

mistakes in the initial rule or to clarify the rule. The revisions 

being proposed are listed below:

     Replacing the term ``useful life'' with ``certified 

emissions life,'' for purposes of clarity;

     Revising Table 3 in the in 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII to 

account for a mistake in how Table 3 characterized the certification 

requirements for high speed fire pump engines in the initial final 

rule;

     Revising the definition of ``emergency stationary internal 

combustion engine,'' and the allowance for maintenance checks and 

readiness testing for such engines, to be consistent with the 

provisions promulgated in the recently completed requirements for 

existing stationary engines in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ;

     Revising the requirement for emergency engines to install 

non-resettable hour meters such that emergency engines that meet the 

requirements for non-emergency engines do not have to install the hour 

meters;

     Revising the applicability provisions to make clearer 

EPA's requirement that all owners and operators of new sources must 

meet the deadlines for installation of compliant stationary engines;

     Revising certain provisions of the NSPS for stationary SI 

engines, particularly concerning definitions and compliance by owners 

and operators of such engines, to ensure consistency where appropriate 

for the regulation of stationary ICE; and

     Adding a definition of ``installed'' to provide clarity to 

the provisions regarding installing engines produced in previous model 

years.



III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts



A. What are the air quality impacts?



    The proposed rule would reduce NOX emissions from 

stationary CI ICE between 10 and 30 l/cyl by an estimated 300 tpy, PM 

emissions by about 8 tpy, and NMHC emissions by about 4 tpy, in the 

year 2018. EPA estimated emissions reductions for the year 2018 because 

the year 2018 is the first year the emission standards would be fully 

implemented for stationary CI engines between 10 and 30 l/cyl. In the 

year 2030, the proposed rule would reduce NOX emissions from 

stationary CI ICE between 10 and 30 l/cyl by an estimated 1,100 tpy, PM 

emissions by about 38 tpy, and NMHC emissions by about 18 tpy. 

Emissions



[[Page 32620]]



reductions were estimated for the year 2030 to provide an estimate of 

what the reductions would be once there has been substantial turnover 

in the engine fleet. EPA expects very few stationary CI ICE with a 

displacement of 30 l/cyl or more to be installed per year, and no 

emissions or emissions reductions have been estimated for these 

engines.



B. What are the cost impacts?



    The total costs of the proposed rule are mostly based on the cost 

associated with purchasing and installing controls on non-emergency 

stationary CI ICE. The costs of aftertreatment were based on 

information developed for CI marine engines. Further information on how 

EPA estimated the total costs of the proposed rule can be found in a 

memorandum included in the docket (Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0295).

    The total national capital cost for the proposed rule is estimated 

to be approximately $236,000 in the year 2018, with a total national 

annual cost of $142,000 in the year 2018. The year 2018 is the first 

year the emission standards would be fully implemented for stationary 

CI engines between 10 and 30 l/cyl. The total national capital cost for 

the proposed rule in the year 2030 is $235,000, with a total national 

annual cost of $711,000.



C. What are the economic impacts?



    EPA expects that there will be less than a 0.03 percent increase in 

price and a similar decrease in product demand associated with this 

proposal for producers and consumers in 2018. For more information, 

please refer to the economic impact analysis for this rulemaking in the 

docket.



D. 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 this proposed rule.



IV. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation



    EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 

decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this 

proposed rule from all interested parties. Whenever applicable, full 

supporting data and detailed analysis should be submitted to allow EPA 

to make maximum use of the comments. The Agency invites all parties to 

coordinate their data collection activities with EPA to facilitate 

mutually beneficial and cost effective data submissions. A redline/

strikeout version of the complete standards of performance for 

stationary compression ignition engines and for stationary spark 

ignition engines which shows the changes that are being proposed in 

this action is available from the rulemaking docket.

    EPA is seeking specific comment on the appropriate test method for 

measuring PM emissions from stationary engines with a displacement 

greater than or equal to 30 l/cyl. Currently, the NSPS for stationary 

CI engines requires these engines to be tested using EPA Method 5, 

which requires the cooling of the engine flue gas to 120 degrees C (248 

degrees F). In a letter from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) 

to EPA dated December 4, 2008 (see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295), 

EMA stated that cooling the flue gas for large stationary engines to 

the filter holder temperature required by EPA Method 5 will result in 

measurement results that are non-reproducible. The letter stated that 

the condensation of semi-volatile organic components from the exhaust 

gas on the cold surfaces needed to cool the gas will lead to results 

that are not repeatable. The letter from EMA recommended that e