B. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Rule in a Less Costly Manner? We have made every effort in developing the proposal to minimize the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those emissions may not result VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77847 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 See 63 FR 18765   66 ( April 15, 1998) ( Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP). in exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are, therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment. Representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry provided EPA with descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed could be used to implement more cost effective reductions in risk. The docket for the proposed rule contains white papers prepared by industry that outline their proposed approaches ( see docket number OAR   2002   0059). These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory controls on facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the utility of each of these approaches with respect to the proposed rule. One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112( d)( 4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112( c)( 1) and 112( c)( 9); and, the third approach would involve the use of a concentration based applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information that could be used to support such approaches. The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112( d) is intended to reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112( c)( 9) of the CAA is intended to allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or subcategories of sources that pose less than a specified level of risk to public health and the environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section 112. While both approaches focus on assessing the inhalation exposures of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically requests comment on the appropriateness and necessity of extending these approaches to account for non inhalation exposures or to account for adverse environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment noted in this section, we are also interested in any information or comment concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost impacts, compliance assurance, legal rationale, and implementation relevant to the identified approaches. We also request comment on appropriate practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We will evaluate all comments before determining whether either of the three approaches will be included in the final rule.

1. Industry Emissions and Potential Health Effects For the RICE source category, four HAP make up the majority of the total HAP. Those four HAP are methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. In accordance with section 112( k) of the CAA, EPA developed a list of 33 HAP which represent the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. Three of the four HAP, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde, are included in the HAP listed for the EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program. In November 1998, EPA published `` A Multimedia Strategy for Priority, Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic ( PBT) Pollutants''. The HAP emitted by RICE facilities do not appear on the published list of PBT compounds referenced in the EPA strategy. Two of the HAP, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, are considered to be nonthreshold carcinogens, and cancer potency values are reported for them in Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). Acrolein and methanol are not carcinogens, but are considered to be threshold pollutants, and inhalation reference concentrations are reported for them in IRIS and by the California Environmental Protection Agency ( CalEPA), respectively. To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the RICE source category, EPA performed a crude risk analysis of the RICE source category that focused only on cancer risks. The results of the analysis are based on approaches for estimating cancer incidence that carry significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. Based on the assessment, if the proposed rule is implemented at all affected RICE facilities, annual cancer incidence is estimated to be reduced on the order of ten cases/ year. Due to the uncertainties associated with the analysis, annual cancer incidence could be higher or lower than these estimates. ( Details of this assessment are available in the docket.)

2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 112( d)( 4) of the CAA The first approach is an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112( d)( 4) to establish standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants. A `` threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, CAA section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards. Specifically, CAA section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT specified under CAA section 112( d)( 2) for pollutants for which a health threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted CAA section 112( d)( 4) to allow categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin of safety. 1 A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual facilities within a source category that meet the CAA section 112( d)( 4) requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this interpretation of the CAA section 112( d)( 4) provision. One scenario would allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the CAA section 112( d)( 4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non threshold pollutants, using the one in a million cancer risk level for decision making for nonthreshold pollutants. A third scenario would allow a CAA section 112( d)( 4) exemption at a facility that emits both threshold and nonthreshold pollutants. For those emission points where only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77848 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 `` Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA   600/ 8   90   066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994. 3 `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel,'' EPA/ 630/ R   00/ 002. USEPA, August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ nceaww1/ pdfs/ chem mix/ chem mix 08 2001. pdf. levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points could be exempt from the MACT standards. The MACT standards would still apply to nonthreshold emissions from other emission points at the source. For this third scenario, emission points that emit a combination of threshold and nonthreshold pollutants that are cocontrolled by MACT would still be subject to the MACT level of control. However, any threshold HAP eligible for exemption under CAA section 112( d)( 4) that are controlled by control devices different from those controlling nonthreshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and the facility would still be subject to the parts of the standards that control nonthreshold pollutants or that control both threshold and non threshold pollutants.

a. Estimation of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices Under the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by RICE sources at the facility do not result in exposures which exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate a hazard quotient by dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration ( often assumed to be equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a location where people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration ( RfC). An RfC is defined as an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the lowest or no observed adverse effect level of a pollutant. 2 A hazard quotient less than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC, and, therefore, presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. A hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants recommends calculating a hazard index by summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same mechanism. 3 Hazard index ( HI) values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause for concern. For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the IRIS. When a pollutant does not have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) or the CalEPA. Table 2 of this preamble provides the RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the HAP emitted by facilities in the RICE source category. A unit risk estimate is defined as the upper bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 micrograms per cubic meter ( µ g/ m3) in air.

TABLE 2.   DOSE RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE RICE SOURCE CATEGORY Chemical name CAS No. Reference concentration a ( mg/ m3) Unit risk estimate b ( 1/( µ g/ m3))

Acetaldehyde .............................................. 75   07   0 9.0E   03 ( IRIS) ........................................... 2.2E   06 ( IRIS) Acrolein ...................................................... 107   02   8 2.0E   05 ( IRIS) ........................................... Formaldehyde ............................................ 50   00   0 9.8E   03 ( ATSDR) ...................................... 1.3E   05 ( IRIS) Methanol ..................................................... 67   56   1 4.0E+ 00 ( CAL) ...........................................

a Reference Concentration: An estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 µ g/ m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10 ¥ 6 per µ g/ m3, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 microgram ( µ g) of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. ( Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater. Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System ( http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ index. html) ATSDR = U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ mrls. html) CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( http:// www. oehha. ca. gov/ air/ hot_ spots/ index. html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (# PB (= 97   921199), July 1997)

To establish an applicability cutoff under CAA section 112( d)( 4), EPA would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure that the concentrations that would be established would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is the exposure concentration divided by the RfC. The EPA's `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity 3. The guidance also suggests, however, that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77849 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4 Senate Debate on Conference Report ( October 27, 1990), reprinted in `` A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103   38 ( 1993) (`` Legis. Hist.'') at 868. 5 See http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata. 6 See http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ toxpro2. html. 7 `` A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA   450/ 4   92   001. David E. Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 1992. exposure route of interest, and for a single specific toxic effect or toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the calculation of an HI does not account for the fact that the potency of a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP potencies, an HI may potentially be underprotective.

b. Options for Establishing a Hazard Index Limit One consideration in establishing a hazard index limit is whether the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the public is exposed 4. There are at least several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the CAA section 112( d)( 4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, public exposure. One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted from RICE sources at the facility to be no greater than one. This approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other sources in the vicinity of the facility or through other routes of exposure ( e. g., through ingestion). A second option is to adopt a default percentage approach, whereby the hazard index limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at some percentage of one ( e. g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual source, establishing a hazard index limit of 0.2 would account for an assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call all sources of HAP, other than the facility in question, background sources. If the facility is allowed to emit HAP such that its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures to threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be protective of public health, since only HI values below one are considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Thus, setting the hazard index limit for the facility at some default percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility ( i. e., in combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally not exceed one, and can generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. The EPA requests comment on using the default percentage approach and on setting the default hazard index limit at 0.2. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple of 1 would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff. A third option is to use available data ( from scientific literature or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to estimate the exposures to HAP from non RICE sources in the vicinity of an individual facility. For example, the EPA's National Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA) 5 and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles 6 contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from RICE sources and from other sources ( as determined from the literature or studies) would then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 1. The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index limit at 1 for such an analysis. A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their own facility specific background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, the EPA requests comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from air, water, food and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to RICE emissions. In addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new or the increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP. The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other approaches. Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the CAA section 112( d)( 4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism?

c. Tiered Analytical Approach for Predicting Exposure Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under CAA section 112( d)( 4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look up tables to determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a hazard index limit to be exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening analysis could implement increasingly more sitespecific but more resource intensive tiers of analysis using EPA approved modeling procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility does not exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered analysis. 7 The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered analytical approach for determining applicability of the CAA section 112( d)( 4) criterion to specific RICE sources. It is also possible VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 13 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77850 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 8`` Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' NCEA   F   0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3   9ff. http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ raf/ pdfs/ cancer_ gls. pdf. that ambient monitoring data could be used to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling approach described above. It is envisioned that the appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above.

d. Accounting for Dose Response Relationships In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as nonthreshold pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and nonthreshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 8 suggest that carcinogens be assigned non linear dose response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that dose response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits a non linear dose response relationship but does not have a threshold. The dose response assessments for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are currently undergoing revision by the EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde and acetaldehyde as potential non linear carcinogens. The revised dose response assessments will be subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before adoption into the EPA Integrated Risk Information System. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose response assessments could affect the potency factors of these HAP, as well as their status as threshold or nonthreshold pollutants. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health. The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when making determinations under section 112( d)( 4). In addition, EPA requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a nonthreshold carcinogenic HAP ( e. g., benzene, methylene chloride) at which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the approaches discussed in this section. If the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach were adopted, the proposed rulemaking would likely indicate that the requirements of the rule do not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered approach that includes EPAapproved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified hazard index limit.

3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112( c)( 9)( B) of the CAA The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112( c)( 1), in order to facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 112 of the CAA. Further, section 112( c)( 9)( B) allows EPA to delete a category ( or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: ( 1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that `` no source in the category * * * emits ( carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such pollutants from the source''; ( 2) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that `` emissions from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and ( 3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that `` no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any source.'' Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper prepared by industry representatives ( see docket number OAR   2002   0059), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger RICE category that would meet the risk based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely include the same requirements as described previously for the second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) approach, whereby a facility would be in the low risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits and if its emissions of nonthreshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10 ¥ 6. The EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a facility be included in the low risk subcategory. Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low risk facility ( i. e., if each met these criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112( c)( 9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that the maximum potential effect of this approach would be the same as that of applying the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach that allows exemption of facilities emitting threshold and non threshold pollutants if exemption criteria are met. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk based approach for establishing subcategories of RICE facilities. Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low risk subcategory under CAA section 112( c)( 9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analytical approach described earlier in the CAA section 112( d)( 4) discussion for these determinations. One concern that EPA has with respect to the CAA section 112( c)( 9) approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many of the facilities in the low risk subcategory are well controlled, that could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low risk subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. This would allow low risk facilities to use the CAA section 112( c)( 9) exemption without affecting the MACT floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77851 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules Another approach under CAA section 112( c)( 9) would be to define a subcategory of facilities within the RICE source category based upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. The EPA requests comment on how we might establish RICE subcategories based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in this technologically defined subcategory presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112( c)( 9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically based subcategories that may include only low risk facilities within the RICE source category. If the CAA section 112( c)( 9) approach were adopted, the proposed rulemaking would likely indicate that the rule does not apply to any source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under CAA section 112( c)( 9).

C. Limited Use Subcategory We are soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use engines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less ( 876 or fewer hours of annual operation). Units in this subcategory would include engines used for electric power peak shaving that are called upon to operate fewer than 876 hours per year. These units operate only during peak energy use periods, typically in the summer months. We believe that these infrequently operated units typically operate 10 percent of the year or less. While these are potential sources of emissions, and it is appropriate for EPA to address them in the proposed rule, the Agency believes that their use and operation are different compared to typical RICE. We believe that it may be appropriate for such limited use units to have their own subcategory. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on subcategorizing RICE having a capacity utilization of less than 10 percent. We have performed a preliminary MACT floor analysis on engines with under 10 percent capacity utilization that are in EPA's RICE database. This analysis indicates that existing units would have a floor of no emissions reductions and new units would have a floor equal to the performance of an oxidation catalyst system. We are interested in comments on creating a subcategory for limited use peak shaving ( less than 10 percent capacity utilization) engines. We are interested in comments on the validity and appropriateness under the CAA for a subcategory for limited use peak shaving engines, data on the levels of control currently achieved by such engines, and any technical limitations that might make it impossible to achieve control of emissions from limited use peak shaving engines.

VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) 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; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined that the proposed rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because it could have an annual effect on the economy of over $ 100 million. Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA responses are available in the docket. As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit cost analysis in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. The following is a summary of the benefitcost analysis. It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and several other HAP from some existing and all new internal combustion engines. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as `` probable human carcinogens'' based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years. These studies have determined a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer; however, there are some questions remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of dollars. Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP emitted from RICE sources are not considered carcinogenic but have been reported to cause several noncarcinogenic effects. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from RICE are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, primarily CO, NOX, and PM, however, VOC are also reduced to a minor extent. It is estimated that CO emissions reductions totals approximately 234,400 tons/ year, NOX emissions reductions totals approximately 167,900 tons/ year, and PM emissions reductions totals approximately 3,700 tons per year. These reductions occur from new and existing engines in operation 5 years after the implementation of the rule as proposed and are expected to continue throughout the life of the engines and continue to grow as new engines ( that otherwise would not be controlled) are purchased for operation. Human health effects associated with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system and CNS effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen content of blood and which can result in modification of visual perception, hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and cognitive ability. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM in the atmosphere, which produces a variety of health and welfare effects. Human health effects associated with NOX include respiratory problems, such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, or even death from complications. Welfare effects from direct NOX exposure include agricultural and forestry damage and acidification of estuaries through rain deposition of nitrogen; while fine PM particles created from NOX can reduce visibility in national parks and other natural and urban areas. At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For NOX and PM, the Agency has conducted several analyses recently that estimate the monetized VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77852 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules benefits of these pollutant reductions, including: the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) of the PM/ Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( 1997), the NOX State Implementation Plan Call ( 1998), the section 126 RIA ( 1999), a study conducted for section 812( b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments ( 1990), the Tier 2/ Gasoline Sulfur Standards ( 1999), and the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel Standards ( 2000). On September 26, 2002, the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) released a report on its review of the Agency's methodology for analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air pollution. The report focused on EPA's approach for estimating the health benefits of regulations designed to reduce concentrations of airborne particulate matter ( PM). In its report, the NAS said that EPA has generally used a reasonable framework for analyzing the health benefits of PM control measures. It recommended, however, that the Agency take a number of steps to improve its benefits analysis. In particular, the NAS stated that the Agency should: ( 1) Include benefits estimates for a range of regulatory options; ( 2) Estimate benefits for intervals, such as every 5 years, rather than a single year; ( 3) Clearly state the project baseline statistics used in estimating health benefits, including those for air emissions, air quality, and health outcomes; ( 4) Examine whether implementation of proposed regulations might cause unintended impacts on human health or the environment; ( 5) When appropriate, use data from non U. S. studies to broaden age ranges to which current estimates apply and to include more types of relevant health outcomes; ( 6) Begin to move the assessment of uncertainties from its ancillary analyses into its primary analyses by conducting probabilistic, multiple source uncertainty analyses. This assessment should be based on available data and expert judgment. Although the NAS made a number of recommendations for improvement in EPA's approach, it found that the studies selected by EPA for use in its benefits analysis were generally reasonable choices. In particular, the NAS agreed with EPA's decision to use cohort studies to derive benefits estimates. It also concluded that the Agency's selection of the American Cancer Society ( ACS) study for the evaluation of PM related premature mortality was reasonable, although it noted the publication of new cohort studies that should be evaluated by the Agency. Several of the NAS recommendations addressed the issue of uncertainty and how the Agency can better analyze and communicate the uncertainties associated with its benefits assessments. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about the Agency's reliance on a single value from its analysis and suggested that EPA develop a probabilistic approach for analyzing the health benefits of proposed regulatory actions. The Agency agrees with this suggestion and is working to develop such an approach for use in future rulemakings. In the RIA for the proposed rule, the Agency has used an interim approach that shows the impact of several important alternative assumptions about the estimation and valuation of reductions in premature mortality and chronic bronchitis. This approach, which was developed in the context of the Agency's Clear Skies analysis, provides an alternative estimate of health benefits using the time series studies in place of cohort studies, as well as alternative valuation methods for mortality and chronic bronchitis risk reductions. For today's action, we conducted an air quality assessment to determine the change in concentrations of PM that results from reductions of NOX and direct emissions of PM at all sources of RICE. Because we are unable to identify the location of all affected existing and new sources of RICE, our analysis is conducted in two phases. In the first phase, we conduct air quality analysis assuming a 50 percent reduction of 1996 levels of NOX emissions and a 100 percent reduction of PM10 emissions for all RICE sources throughout the country. The results of this analysis serve as a reasonable approximation of air quality changes to transfer to the proposed rule's emissions reductions at affected sources. The results of the air quality assessment served as input to a model that estimates the benefits related to the health effects listed above. In the second phase of our analysis, the value of the benefits per ton of NOX and PM reduced ( e. g., $ benefit/ ton reduced) associated with the air quality scenarios are then applied to the tons of NOX and PM emissions expected to be reduced by the proposed rule. We also used the benefit transfer method to value improvements in ozone based on the transfer of benefit values from an analysis of the 1998 NOX SIP call. In addition, although the benefits of the welfare effects of NOX are monetized in other Agency analyses, we chose not to do an analysis of the improvements in welfare effects that will result from the proposed rule. Alternatively, we could transfer the estimates of welfare benefits from these other studies to this analysis, but chose not to do so because these studies with estimated welfare benefits differ in the source and location of emissions and associated impacted populations. Every benefit cost analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities ( such as geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate changes in health and environmental effects, such as potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. While these general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on the results of the benefit cost analysis of today's action are the following: ( 1) The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories ( e. g., health and ecological benefits of reduction in hazardous air pollutants emissions); ( 2) Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as population growth; ( 3) Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions inventories and air quality; ( 4) Uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of air quality monitoring data to some unmonitored areas required to better capture the effects of the standards on the affected population; ( 5) Variability in the estimated relationships of health and welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; and ( 6) Uncertainties associated with the benefit transfer approach. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of the RICE NESHAP under two different sets of assumptions. We have used two approaches ( Base and Alternative Estimates) to provide benefits in health effects and in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77853 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules monetary terms. They differ in the method used to estimate and value reduced incidences of mortality and chronic bronchitis, which is explained in detail in the RIA. While there is a substantial difference in the specific estimates, both approaches show that the RICE MACT may provide benefits to public health, whether expressed as health improvements or as economic benefits. These include prolonging lives, reducing cases of chronic bronchitis and hospital admissions, and reducing thousands of cases in other indicators of adverse health effects, such as work loss days, restricted activity days, and days with asthma attacks. In addition, there are a number of health and environmental effects which we were unable to quantify or monetize. These effects, denoted by `` B'' are additive to both the Base and Alternative estimates of benefits. Results also reflect the use of two different discount rates for the valuation of reduced incidences of mortality; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A   94 ( OMB, 1992). More specifically, the Base Estimate of benefits reflects the use of peerreviewed methodologies developed for earlier risk and benefit cost assessments related to the Clean Air Act, such as the regulatory assessments of the Heavy Duty Diesel and Tier II rules and the section 812 Report to Congress. The Alternative Estimate explores important aspects of the key elements underlying estimates of the benefits of reducing NOX emissions, specifically focusing on estimation and valuation of mortality risk reduction and valuation of chronic bronchitis. The Alternative Estimate of mortality reduction relies on recent scientific studies finding an association between increased mortality and shortterm exposure to particulate matter over days to weeks, while the Base Estimate relies on a recent reanalysis of earlier studies that associate long term exposure to fine particles with increased mortality. The Alternative Estimate differs in the following ways: It explicitly omits any impact of long term exposure on premature mortality, it uses different data on valuation and makes adjustments relating to the health status and potential longevity of the populations most likely affected by PM, it also uses a cost of illness method to value reductions in cases of chronic bronchitis while the Base Estimate is based on individual's willingness to pay ( WTP) to avoid a case of chronic bronchitis. In addition, one key area of uncertainty is the value of a statistical life ( VSL) for risk reductions in mortality, which is also the category of benefits that accounts for a large portion of the total benefit estimate. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economic and public policy analysis community. There is general agreement that the value to an individual of a reduction in mortality risk can vary based on several factors, including the age of the individual, the type of risk, the level of control the individual has over the risk, the individual's attitude toward risk, and the health status of the individual. The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee ( EEAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board ( SAB) recently issued an advisory report which states that `` the theoretically appropriate method is to calculate WTP for individuals whose ages correspond to those of the affected population, and that it is preferable to base these calculations on empirical estimates of WTP by age'' ( EPA   SAB   EEAC   00   013). In developing our Base Estimate of the benefits of premature mortality reductions, we have appropriately discounted over the lag period between exposure and premature mortality. However, the empirical basis for adjusting the current $ 6 million VSL for other factors does not yet justify including these in our Base Estimate. A discussion of these factors is contained in the RIA and supporting documents. The EPA recognizes the need for additional research by the scientific community to develop additional empirical support for adjustments to VSL for the factors mentioned above. Furthermore, EPA prefers not to draw distinctions in the monetary value assigned to the lives saved even if they differ in age, health status, socioeconomic status, gender or other characteristic of the adult population. However, adjustments to VSL for age and life expectancy are explored in the Alternative Estimate.

Given its basis in methods approved by the SAB, we employed the approach used for the benefit analysis of the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel standards conducted in 2000 to the RICE NESHAP discussed in this preamble. A full discussion of considerations made in our presentation of benefits is summarized in the preamble of the Final Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel standards issued in December 2000, and in all supporting documentation and analyses of the Heavy Duty Diesel Program, and in the RIA for the proposed rule.

In addition to the presentation of quantified health benefits, our estimate also includes a `` B'' to represent those additional health and environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative incidence and/ or economic value terms. A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of the RICE NESHAP requires consideration of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards, not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table 3 of this preamble.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77854 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3.   UNQUANTIFIED BENEFIT CATEGORIES FROM RICE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Unquantified benefit categories associated with HAP Unquantified benefit categories associated with ozone Unquantified benefit categories associated with PM Health Categories .......................... Carcinogenicity mortality. Genotoxicity mortality. Non Cancer lethality. Pulmonary function decrement. Dermal irritation. Eye irritation. Neurotoxicity. Immunotoxicity. Pulmonary function decrement. Liver damage. Gastrointestinal toxicity. Kidney damage. Cardiovascular impairment. Hematopoietic ( Blood disorders). Reproductive/ Developmental toxicity Airway responsiveness. Pulmonary inflammation. Increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. Acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage. Chronic respiratory damage/ Premature aging of lungs. Emergency room visits for asthma Changes in pulmonary function. Morphological changes. Altered host defense mechanisms Cancer. Other chronic respiratory disease. Emergency room visits for asthma Lower and upper respiratory symptoms. Acute bronchitis. Shortness of breath.

Welfare Categories ........................ Corrosion/ deterioration. Unpleasant odors. Transportation safety concerns. Yield reductions/ Foliar injury. Biomass decrease. Species richness decline. Species diversity decline. Community size decrease. Organism lifespan decrease. Trophic web shortening. Ecosystem and vegetation effects in Class I areas ( e. g., national parks). Damage to urban ornamentals ( e. g., grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees in urban areas). Commercial field crops. Fruit and vegetable crops Reduced yields of tree seedlings, commercial and non commercial forests. Damage to ecosystems. Materials damage. Materials damage. Damage to ecosystems ( e. g., acid sulfate deposition). Nitrates in drinking water.

Our Base Estimate of benefits totals approximately $ 280 million when using a 3 percent interest rate ( or approximately $ 265 million when using a 7 percent interest rate). The Alternative Estimate totals approximately $ 40 million when using a 3 percent interest rate ( or approximately $ 45 million when using a 7 percent interest rate). Benefit cost comparison ( or net benefits) is another tool used to evaluate the reallocation of society's resources needed to address the pollution externality created by the operation of RICE units. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major sources of emissions from RICE units is compared to the improvement in society's well being from a cleaner and healthier environment. Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by alternative ways to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the proposed RICE NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimal level of control mandated by the Clean Air Act, or the MACT floor. Table 4 of this preamble presents a summary of the costs, emission reductions, and quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 5 of this preamble presents a summary of net benefits. Based on estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $ 254 million ( 1998$) as are discussed previously in this preamble. Unfortunately, the air benefits characterized in this analysis are limited by the data available on the numerous health and welfare categories for the affected pollutants and by the lack of approved methods for quantifying effects. Using the Base Estimate of benefits, the portion of total benefits associated with NOX and PM reductions exceed the estimated total costs of the proposed rule by $ 25 million + B when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 10 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). However, using the more conservative Alternative Estimate of benefits, net benefits are negative. Under the Alternative Estimate, net benefits total ¥ $ 215 million + B under a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately ¥ $ 210 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). Approximately 90 percent of the total benefits ($ 255 million under the Base Estimate, and $ 35 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with NOX reductions from the 4SRB subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately 10 percent of the total benefits ($ 25 million under the Base Estimate, and $ 5 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with the PM reductions from the compression ignition engine subcategory at new sources.

In both cases, net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of the HAP and other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable omissions to the net benefits include all benefits of HAP and CO reductions, including reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity effects, and cardiovascular and CNS effects. It is also important to note that not all benefits of NOX reductions have been monetized. Categories which have contributed significantly to monetized benefits in past analyses ( see the RIA for the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel standards) include commercial agriculture and forestry, recreational and residential visibility improvements, and estuarine improvements.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77855 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4.   SUMMARY OF COSTS, EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS BY ENGINE TYPE Type of engine Total annualized cost ( million $/ yr in the 5th year after promulgation Emission reductions A ( tons/ yr in the 5th year after promulgation) Quantifiable annual monetized benefits B, C ( million $/ yr in the 2005)

HAP CO NOX PM Base estimate Alternative estimate 2SLB New ........................................................... 3 250 2,025 0 0 B1 B2 4SLB New ........................................................... 66 4,035 36,240 0 0 B3 B4 4SRB Existing ..................................................... 38 230 98,040 69,900 0 $ 105 + B 5 $ 100 + B 6 $ 15 + B 7 $ 15 + B 8 4SRB New ........................................................... 48 215 91,820 98,000 0 $ 150 + B 9 $ 140 + B 10 $ 20 + B 11 $ 25 + B 12 CI New ................................................................. 99 305 6,320 0 3,700 $ 25 + B 13 $ 5 + B 14 Total ............................................................. 254 5,035 234,445 167,900 3,700 $ 280 + B $ 265 + B $ 40 + B $ 45 + B A For the calculation of PM related benefits, total NOX reductions are multiplied by the appropriate benefit per ton value presented in Table 8   7 of the RIA. For the calculation of ozone related benefits, NOX reductions are multiplied by 5  12 to account for ozone season months and 0.74 to account for Eastern States in the ozone analysis. The resulting ozone related NOX reductions are multiplied by $ 28 per ton. Ozone related benefits are summed together with PM related benefits to derive total benefits of NOX reductions. All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $ 5 million. B Benefits of HAP and CO emissions reductions are not quantified in this analysis and, therefore, are not presented in this table. The quantifiable benefits are from emissions reductions of NOX and PM only. For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a `` B'' to represent monetary benefits. A detailed listing of unquantified NOX, PM, and HAP related health effects is provided in Table 8   13 of the RIA. C Results reflect the use of two different discount rates; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A   94 ( OMB, 1992).

TABLE 5.   ANNUAL NET BENEFITS OF THE RICE NESHAP IN 2005 Million 1998$ A Social Costs B ................................................................................................................................................................................. $ 255 Social Benefits B, C, D: HAP related benefits ................................................................................................................................................................ Not monetized CO related benefits .................................................................................................................................................................. Not monetized Ozone and PM related welfare benefits ................................................................................................................................. Not monetized Ozone and PM related health benefits: Base Estimate   Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 280 + B   Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 265 + B Alternative Estimate   Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 40 + B   Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 45 + B Net Benefits ( Benefits   Costs) C, D: Base Estimate   Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 25 + B   Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 10 + B Alternative Estimate   Using 3% Discount Rate .......................................................................................................................................   $ 215 + B   Using 7% Discount Rate .......................................................................................................................................   $ 210 + B A All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $ 5 million. Thus, figures presented in this chapter may not exactly equal benefit and cost numbers presented in earlier sections of the chapter. B Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants, including HAP and CO, as well as NOx and PM 10. Benefits in this table are associated only with PM and NOx reductions. C Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table 8   13. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits. D Monetized benefits are presented using two different discount rates. Results calculated using 3 percent discount rate are recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a). Results calculated using 7 percent discount rate are recommended by OMB Circular A   94 ( OMB, 1992).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. We are required by section 112 of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. 7412, to establish the standards in the proposed rule. The proposed rule primarily affects private industry and does not impose significant economic costs on State or local governments. The proposed rule does not include an express provision preempting State or local regulations. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77856 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, we consulted with representatives of State and local governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the proposed rule. This consultation took place during the ICCR FACA committee meetings where members representing State and local governments participated in developing recommendations for EPA's combustion related rulemakings, including the proposed rule. The concerns raised by representatives of State and local governments were considered during the development of the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, we specifically solicit comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. 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. No known stationary RICE are located within the jurisdiction of any tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the proposed rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered. The Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by the proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or identify peer reviewed studies and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assess the results of early life exposure to the pollutants addressed by the proposed rule and suggest a disproportionate impact.

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211, ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as significant energy actions. Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines significant energy actions as any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: ( 1)( i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. While the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that the proposed rule is not a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy based on the Statement of Energy Effects for this action provided below. The RIA estimates changes in prices and production levels for all energy markets ( i. e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal). We also estimate how changes in the energy markets will impact other users of energy, such as manufacturing markets and residential, industrial and commercial consumers of energy. The results of the economic impact analysis for the proposed rule are shown for 2005, for that is the year in which full implementation of the rule is expected to occur. These results show that there will be minimal changes in price, if any, for most energy products affected by implementation of the proposed rule. Only a slight price increase ( about 0.001 percent to 0.02 percent) may occur in three of the energy sectors: petroleum, electricity, and coal products nationwide, and approximately a one tenth of one percent ( i. e., 0.10 percent) change in natural gas prices. The change in energy costs associated with the proposed rule, however, represents only 0.03 percent of expected annual energy expenditures by residential consumers in 2005, a 0.008 percent change for transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.03 percent of energy expenditures in the commercial sector. In addition, no discernable impact on exports or imports of energy products is expected. Therefore, the impacts on energy markets and users will be relatively small nationwide as a result of implementation of the proposed reciprocating internal combustion engines NESHAP.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77857 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed 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, we have prepared a written statement under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. The written statement is in the docket.

1. Statutory Authority As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority for the proposed rulemaking 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. These NESHAP apply to all stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions, however, only certain existing and new or reconstructed stationary RICE have substantive regulatory requirements. In compliance with section 205( a), we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT floor for stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and least burdensome alternative.

2. Social Costs and Benefits The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the Agency's assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $ 254 million ( 1998$). It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and other HAP from existing and new stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as `` probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several other toxic effects. The proposed rule will also achieve reductions in 234,400 tons of CO, approximately 167,900 tons of NOX per year, and approximately 3,700 tons of PM per year. Exposure to CO can effect the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM, which can result in fatalities and many respiratory problems ( such as asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone causing several respiratory problems to affected populations. At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For NOX and PM, we estimated the benefits associated with health effects of PM but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits of NOX ( particularly those associated with ecosystem and environmental effects). Unquantified benefits are noted with `` B'' in the estimates presented below. Total monetized benefits are approximately $ 280 million + B ( 1998$) under our Base Estimate when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 265 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). Under the Alternative Estimate, total benefits are approximately $ 40 million + B when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 45 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). The approach to value benefits is discussed in more detail in this preamble under the Executive Order 12866. These monetized benefits should be considered along with the many categories of benefits that we are unable to place a dollar value on to consider the total benefits of the proposed rule.

3. Future and Disproportionate Costs The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in this preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, State or local governments, types of communities ( e. g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments.

4. Effects on the National Economy The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U. S. goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on most of the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized previously in this preamble.

5. Consultation With Government Officials The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of our prior consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials, summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize our response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a proposal. Although the proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on the proposed rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other interested parties. We have added materials to the docket to document these meetings. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77858 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed 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 today's proposed rule on small entities, `` small entity'' is defined as: ( 1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees ( for most affected industries); ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government or 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 forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the proposed rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121, and classified by the NAICS. The Small Business Administration ( SBA) defines small businesses in most industries affected by the proposed rule as those with fewer than 500 employees. However, SBA has defined `` small business'' differently for a limited number of industries, either through reference to another employment cap or through the substitution of total yearly revenues in place of an employment limit. For more information on the size standards for particular industries, please refer to the regulatory impact analysis in the docket. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In support of this certification, EPA examined the percentage of annual revenues that compliance costs may consume if small entities must absorb all of the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Since many firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance costs to customers, actual impacts will frequently be lower than those analyzed here. As is mentioned in previous sections of this preamble, the proposed rule will set standards for only a limited set of existing units, specifically 4SRB units. For all other types of engines, the proposed rule would impose requirements only on new engines. The EPA identified a total of 26,832 engines located at commercial, industrial, and government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines, 10,118 engines were excluded because the proposed regulation will not cover engines smaller than 500 horsepower or engines used to supply emergency/ backup power. Of the 16,714 units remaining, 2,645 units had sufficient information to assign to model unit numbers developed during the cost analysis. These 2,645 units were linked to 834 existing facilities, owned by 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies were identified as small entities, and only 13 of them own 4SRB engines. These small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities. Further, assuming only 40 percent of the all RICE sources are located at major sources and, thus, affected by the regulation, about 16 of the 39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small businesses would be located at major sources. Under this scenario, there are no small firms that have compliance costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and only two small firms owning 4SRB engines that have impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. In addition to 12 small firms with 4SRB engines, there is one small government in the Inventory Database affected by the proposed rule. The costs to this city are approximately $ 3 per capita annually assuming their engine is affected by the proposed rule, less than 0.01 percent of median household income. Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the regulation will affect no small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales ratio ( CSR) greater than 3 percent, while approximately 4 percent ( 2/ 47) of small entities owning RICE greater than 500 horsepower will have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper bound cost scenario. In comparison, the total existing population of engines with greater than 500 horsepower that are not backup units is estimated to be 22,018. Assuming the same breakdown of large and small company ownership of engines in the total population of existing engines as in the subset with parent company information identified, the Agency expects that approximately 17 small entities in the existing population of RICE owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario where we assume all RICE owned by small entities are located at major sources. In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be affected because of the exclusion of engines with less than 500 horsepower, the percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are affected by the proposed rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion of engines in the Inventory Database that are greater than 500 horsepower and are not backup units ( 16,714/ 26,832, or 62.3 percent) and assuming that small companies own the same proportion of small engines ( less than 500 horsepower) as they do of engines greater than 500 horsepower, the Agency estimates that 628 small companies own RICE. Of all small companies owning RICE, 2.7 percent ( 17/ 628) are expected to have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario. If the percentage of RICE owned by small companies that are located at major sources is the same as the engine population overall ( 40 percent), only about 1.1 percent of small companies owning RICE would be expected to have CSR greater than 1 percent. The average profit margin for the industries in our analysis is approximately 5 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit margin data, it seems reasonable to review the number of small firms with CSR above 3 percent in screening for significant impacts. In addition, based on the low number of affected small firms, the fact that no small firms have CSR between 3 and 5 percent, and the fact that industry profit margins average 5 percent, this analysis concludes that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of existing small entities. For new sources, it can be reasonably assumed that the investment decision to purchase a new engine may be slightly altered as a result of the proposed rule. In fact, for the entire population of affected engines ( approximately 20,000 new engines over a 5 year period), 2 fewer engines ( 0.01 percent) may be purchased due to changes in costs of the engines and market responses to the proposed rule. It is not possible, however, to determine future investment decisions by the small entities in the affected industries, so we cannot link these 2 engines to any one firm ( small or large). Overall, it is very unlikely that a substantial number of small firms who may consider purchasing a new engine will be significantly impacted, because the decision to purchase new engines is not altered to a large extent. In addition to this consideration of costs on some firms attributable to the proposed rule, EPA notes the proposed rule is likely to increase revenues for many small firms, including those not regulated by the proposed rule, due to a predictable increase in prices of natural gas in the industry. Although the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77859 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules entities. In the proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level of control allowed by the CAA ( i. e., the MACT floor), and the minimum level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting by affected sources. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the preamble, new RICE units with capacities under 500 horsepower and those that operate as emergency/ limited use units are not covered by the proposed rule, provisions that should greatly reduce the level of small entity impacts. We continue to be interested in reducing any remaining impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request ( ICR) document has been prepared ( ICR No. 1975.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 200, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566   1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the control devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 142,436 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 15,998,347. The estimate includes a one time performance test and report ( with repeat tests where needed); onetime purchase and installation of bag leak detection systems; one time submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3 year period of the ICR are estimated at $ 5,436,882, with operation and maintenance costs of $ 1,208,206/ yr. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on our need for the information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the U. S. EPA, Director, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20500; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 19, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposed rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Pub. L. No. 104   113; 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose in the rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; PS 3, PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; EPA SW   8 Method 0011, and ARB Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 3B, PS 3, PS 4 of CFR part 60, and ARB Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable, and we propose to use that standard in the proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6522   00 ( 2000)   Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions From Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers, is an acceptable alternative procedure for use in determining carbon monoxide and oxygen concentrations the exhaust gases of reciprocating internal combustion engines. In addition to the voluntary consensus standard we propose to use in the rule, this search for emission VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77860 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules measurement procedures identified ten other voluntary consensus standards. We determined that six of these ten standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods are discussed below. Two of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM E337   84 ( Reapproved 1996), `` Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer ( the Measurement of Wet and Dry Bulb Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and CAN/ CSA Z223.2   M86( 1986), `` Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Four of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance requirements: ASTM D3154   91, `` Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct ( Pitot Tube Method),'' for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D5835   95, `` Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO 10396: 1993, `` Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO 9096: 1992, `` Determination of Concentration and Mass Flow Rate of Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts   Manual Gravimetric Method,'' for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The following four of the ten voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 ( and possibly 2) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions   Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen   Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D6348   98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and Gas Research Institute, `` Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While we are not proposing to include these four voluntary consensus standards in today's proposal, we will consider the standards when final. The consensus standard, GRI, `` Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method,'' is currently under our review as an alternative method for sampling formaldehyde emissions in the exhaust of natural gasfired combustion sources. This standard is based on the `` Chilled Impinger Train Method for Methanol, Acetone, Acetaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Formaldehyde'' and is described by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement in its Technical Bulletin No. 684, dated December 1994. After EPA's review, if this GRI standard is determined to be technically appropriate for identifying formaldehyde emissions, it could be incorporated by reference for our regulatory applicability at a later date. For the voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6348   98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' we have submitted comments to ASTM regarding EPA's technical evaluation of ASTM D6348   98. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22   03 is undertaking a revision of the ASTM standard in part to address EPA's comments. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with EPA's FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability. We are taking comment on the compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed rulemaking and specifically invite the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should also explain why the proposed regulation should adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method ( if a method other than Method 301, of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used). Tables 4, 5, and 6 of proposed subpart ZZZZ list the EPA testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Under 40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63   [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZ to read as follows:

Subpart ZZZZ   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Sec.

What This Subpart Covers 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ? 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission and Operating Limitations 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements 63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77861 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 63.6625 What are my monitor installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations?

Notification, Reports, and Records 63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when? 63.6655 What records must I keep? 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for New and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for New and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Subsequent Performance Tests Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Reports Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ What This Subpart Covers § 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ? Subpart ZZZZ establishes national emission limitations and operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) emitted from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE) located at major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations.

§ 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary RICE at a major source of HAP emissions, except if the stationary RICE is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand. ( a) A stationary RICE is any internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are not self propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is identified in the definition of non road engine at 40 CFR 89.2. ( b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons ( 9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons ( 22.68 megagrams) or more per year, except that for oil and gas production facilities, a major source of HAP emissions is determined for each surface site.

§ 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

This subpart applies to each affected source. ( a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, excluding stationary RICE being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand. ( 1) Existing stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the stationary RICE before December 19, 2002. A change in ownership of an existing stationary RICE does not make that stationary RICE a new or reconstructed stationary RICE. ( 2) New stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is new if you commenced construction of the stationary RICE after December 19, 2002. ( 3) Reconstructed stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after December 19, 2002. ( b) Exceptions. ( 1) A stationary RICE which meets either of the criteria in paragraph ( b)( 1)( i) or ( 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( d). ( i) The stationary RICE is an emergency power/ limited use unit; or ( ii) The stationary RICE combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel. ( 2) A stationary RICE which meets any of the criteria in paragraph ( b)( 2)( i) or ( ii) of this section does not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part. ( i) The stationary RICE is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn ( 2SLB), an existing spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn ( 4SLB), or a compression ignition ( CI) stationary RICE; or ( ii) The stationary RICE has a manufacturer's nameplate rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower.

§ 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart? ( a) Affected sources. ( 1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations no later than [ 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE before [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart no later than [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. ( b) Area sources that become major sources. If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, any existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE must be in compliance with this subpart when the area source becomes a major source. ( c) If you own or operate an affected RICE, you must meet the applicable notification requirements in § 63.6645 and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.

Emission and Operating Limitations § 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I meet? ( a) If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed spark ignition 4 stroke rich burn ( 4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 1( a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 1( b) of this subpart which apply to you. ( b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a new or reconstructed CI VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77862 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 2( a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2( b) of this subpart which apply to you. ( c) If you own or operate: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel; an emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE; a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less; or a stationary RICE which is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations in Tables 1( a) and 2( a) of this subpart or operating limitations in Tables 1( b) and 2( b) of this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements § 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, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( b) If you must comply with emission limitations and operating limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary RICE, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you within 180 calendar 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).

§ 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? If you must comply with the emission limitations and operating limitations, you must conduct subsequent performance tests as specified in Table 3 of this subpart.

§ 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? ( a) You must conduct each performance test in Tables 3 and 4 of this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 4. ( c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1). ( d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( e)( 1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement:

C C C i o i   × 100 = R ( Eq. 1)

Where: Ci = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control device inlet, Co = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control device outlet, and R = percent reduction of CO or formaldehyde emissions. ( 2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide ( CO) or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst or non selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR) ( whichever applies to you) to a dry basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide ( CO2) if you are using a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS). ( f) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations to be established during the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter; or for approval of no additional operating limitations. You must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. ( g) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations, your petition must include the information described in paragraphs ( g)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as additional operating limitations; ( 2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/ or lower values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these parameters in the operating limitations; ( 4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments; and ( 5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these parameters. ( h) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating limitations, your petition must include the information described in paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. ( 1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change intentionally ( e. g., operator adjustment, automatic controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally ( e. g., wear and tear, error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time; ( 2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions; ( 3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to increase HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to increase HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on the parameters in operating limitations; ( 5) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the methods you could use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; ( 6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and ( 7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 EP19DE02.000</ MATH> 77863 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.6625 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

( a) If you are required to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 at both the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst according to the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. ( 2) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation and an annual relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) of each CEMS according to the requirements in § 63.8 and according to the applicable performance specifications 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. ( 3) As specified in § 63.8( c)( 4)( ii), each CEMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation ( sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15 minute period. You must have at least two data points, with each representing a different 15 minute period, to have a valid hour of data. ( 4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in § 63.8( g)( 2) and recorded in parts per million or parts per billion ( as appropriate for the applicable limitation) at 15 percent oxygen or the equivalent CO2 concentration. ( b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements in § 63.8.

§ 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations?

( a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. ( b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each operating limitation in Tables 1( b) and 2( b) of this subpart that applies to you. ( c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6645. Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance?

( a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you must monitor and collect data according to this section. ( b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is operating. ( c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling the minimum data availability requirement. You must, however, use all the valid data collected during all other periods.

§ 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 1( a) and 1( b) and Tables 2( a) and 2( b) of this subpart that apply to you according to methods specified in Table 6 of this subpart. ( b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1( a) and 1( b) and Tables 2( a) and 2( b) of 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 ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), 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 CO or formaldehyde percent reduction applicable to your stationary RICE. ( c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. ( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations from the emission or operating limitations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations. ( e) If you are complying with the requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration, you must conduct performance tests as shown in Table 4 of this subpart. Following the initial performance test, subsequent performance tests must be conducted at the lowest load. You must also conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum load or minimum fuel flow rate if you want to operate the stationary RICE at a load or fuel flow rate lower than that established during the initial performance test. ( f) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart that apply to you. If you own or operate an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart. If you own or operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel or an emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart, except for the initial notification requirements.

Notifications, Reports, and Records § 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. ( b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, and you start up your stationary RICE before [ the effective date of this subpart], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than [ 120 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE on or after the [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 days after you become subject to this subpart. ( d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in accordance with § 63.6590( b), your notification should include the information in § 63.9( b)( 2)( i) through ( v), and a statement that your stationary RICE has no additional requirements and explain the basis of the exclusion ( for example, that it operates exclusively as an emergency/ limited use stationary RICE).

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77864 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). ( f) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). ( 1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. ( 2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2).