Thursday,

December 19, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77830 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ OAR   2002   0059; FRL   7417   9]

RIN 2060   AG   63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE) with manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). We have identified stationary RICE as a major source category of HAP emissions such as formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The proposed rule would implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for RICE. We estimate that 40 percent of stationary RICE will be located at major sources and thus subject to the proposed rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. We estimate that the proposed rule would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major stationary RICE by approximately 5,000 tons/ year in the 5th year after the standards are implemented. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003, or by February 20, 2003 if a public hearing is held. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 8, 2003, a public hearing will be held on January 21, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail ( in duplicate, if possible) to EPA West ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA ( MD   6102T), Room B   108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. By hand delivery/ courier, comments may be submitted ( in duplicate, if possible) to EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA, ( MD   6102T), Room B   108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. Also, comments may be submitted electronically according to the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. Docket. Docket No. OAR   2002   0059 contains supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B108, and may be inspected from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division, ( MD   C439   01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541   5263; facsimile number ( 919) 541   5450; electronic mail address: roy. sims@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

Category SIC NAICS Examples of regulated entities Any industry using a stationary RICE as defined in the proposed rule. 4911 2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution.

4922 48621 Natural gas transmission. 1311 211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 1321 211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 9711 92811 National security.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.6585 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77831 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. The EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to a and r docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your email address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. By Mail. Send your comments ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U. S. EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed above ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified above. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Sims Roy, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( Room C404   2), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0059. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77832 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mrs. Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division ( MD   C439   01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, ( 919) 541   5578 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mrs. Hayes to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule. If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information presented at a public hearing, if held. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background A. What is the regulatory development background of this source category? B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP? C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? D. What are the health effects associated with HAP from stationary RICE? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. Am I subject to the proposed rule? B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the proposed rule? C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are the emissions? D. What are the emission limitations and operating limitations? E. What are the initial compliance requirements? F. What are the continuous compliance provisions? G. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde? H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category and any subcategories? B. What is the affected source? C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations? D. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE of 500 brake horsepower or less? E. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE located at area sources? F. How did we select the format of the standard? G. How did we select the initial compliance requirements? H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? I. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde? J. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the air quality impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the nonair health, environmental and energy impacts? V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background A. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source Category?

In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking ( ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA). The committee's objective was to develop recommendations for regulations for several combustion source categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to stationary RICE units. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations, information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to EPA. The Committee's 2 year charter expired in September 1998. We considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the proposed rule for stationary RICE.

B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The stationary RICE source category was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 ton/ yr of any one HAP or 25 ton/ yr of any combination of HAP. Most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines are not major HAP emission sources by themselves but are major because they are co located at major HAP sites.

C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing sources in regulated source categories. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory ( or the best performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77833 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Stationary RICE? Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP show that several HAP are emitted from stationary RICE. These HAP emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds contained in the fuel burned. Hazardous air pollutants which have been measured in emission tests conducted on natural gas fired and distillate oil fired RICE include: 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane, 1,3 butadiene, 2,2,4 trimethylpentane, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methanol, methylene chloride, n hexane, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic organic matter, styrene, tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP from distillate oil fired stationary RICE that have been measured are: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Although numerous HAP may be emitted from RICE, only a few account for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions from stationary RICE. These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The hazardous air pollutant emitted in the largest quantities from stationary RICE is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, coughing, dry throat, tightening of the chest, headache, and heart palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Long term exposure can cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and respiratory tract. Acrolein is a cytotoxic agent, a powerful lacrimating agent, and a severe tissue irritant. Acute exposure to acrolein can cause severe irritation or corrosion of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with tearing, pain in the chest, and delayed onset pulmonary injury with depressed pulmonary function. Chronic exposure to acrolein can cause skin sensitization and contact dermatitis. Acrolein is not considered carcinogenic to humans. Humans are very sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol including formic acidaemia, metabolic acidosis, ocular toxicity, nervous system depression, blindness, coma, and death. A majority of the available information on methanol toxicity in humans is based on acute rather than long term exposure. However, recent animal studies also indicate potential reproductive and developmental health consequences following exposure to methanol in both mice and primates. Methanol has not been classified with respect to carcinogenicity. The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eye mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and a central nervous system ( CNS) depressant in humans. Chronic exposure can cause conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and teratogenic effects. Acetaldehyde is a probable carcinogen in humans. We recently reviewed health effects associated with emissions of particulates from diesel engines in the context of regulating heavy duty motor vehicles and engines ( 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). Diesel particulate matter is not currently listed as a hazardous air pollutant for stationary sources under section 112 of the CAA and was not specifically reviewed under the proposed rule, though constituent parts of diesel particulate matter are subject to the proposed rule. We are continuing to review this issue in the context of regulating stationary internal combustion engines.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. Am I Subject to the Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate stationary RICE which are located at a major source of HAP emissions, except if your stationary RICE are all rated at or under 500 brake horsepower. 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. Section 112( n)( 4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We incorporated the requirements of section 112( n)( 4) of the CAA into our NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for RICE only with respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility. The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have potential for flash emissions, RICE and combustion turbines. The standards proposed in the rule have specific requirements for all new or reconstructed stationary RICE and for existing spark ignition 4 stroke rich burn ( 4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, except that stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less are not addressed in the proposed rule. Stationary RICE which operate exclusively as emergency power/ limited use units or which combust landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel are subject only to initial notification requirements. An emergency power/ limited use unit means any stationary RICE that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source during emergencies, when the primary power source for a facility has been rendered inoperable by an emergency situation. One example is when electric power from the local utility is interrupted. Another example is to pump water in the case of fire or flood. Emergency power/ limited use units include units that operate less than 50 hours per year in nonemergency situations, including certain peaking units at electric facilities or stationary RICE at industrial facilities. With the exception of existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE, other types of existing stationary RICE ( i. e., spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn ( 2SLB), spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn ( 4SLB), and compression ignition ( CI)) located at a major source of HAP emissions are not subject to any specific requirement under the proposed rule. Finally, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/ stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.

B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule covers new or reconstructed stationary RICE and existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE. A RICE is any spark ignition or compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion engine. A stationary RICE is any RICE which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are not self

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77834 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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. We divided the stationary RICE source category into four subcategories: ( 1) Emergency power/ limited use units, ( 2) stationary RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, ( 3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, and ( 4) other stationary RICE. We further divided the last subcategory into four subcategories: ( 1) 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) 4SLB stationary RICE, ( 3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and ( 4) CI stationary RICE. We are specifically soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use engines with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or less. This is further discussed in the `` Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation'' section of this preamble. The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/ stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. The proposed rule also does not apply to existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a plant site that does not emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons ( 9.07 megagrams) or greater per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons ( 22.68 megagrams) or greater per year. In addition, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or below. These engines have been discussed previously in this preamble.

C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the Emissions? The primary sources of HAP emissions are exhaust gases from combustion of gaseous fuels and liquid fuels in stationary RICE. Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde are HAP that are present in significant quantities from stationary RICE.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations? As the owner or operator of an affected source, you must do one of the following: ( 1) Each existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 1( a) of proposed subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in Table 1( b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply, or ( 2) each new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 2( a) of proposed subpart ZZZZ and operating limitation in Table 2( b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply. Existing 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or existing CI stationary RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively as emergency power/ limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust digester gas or landfill gas as their primary fuel have an emission standard of no emission reduction, and will not be tested to meet any specific emission limitation or operating limitation. In addition, any stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, any stationary RICE that have a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, or stationary RICE that are being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands are not addressed in the proposed rule and, therefore, do not need to comply with any emission limitation or operating limitation.

E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements? If your stationary RICE must meet specific emission limitations and operating limitations, then you must meet the following initial compliance requirements. The testing and initial compliance requirements are different, depending on whether you demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide ( CO) emission reduction requirement, formaldehyde emission reduction requirement, or the requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration in the stationary RICE exhaust. 1. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using a oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) to continuously monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are achieving the required CO percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. 2. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS) to measure CO and either carbon dioxide or oxygen simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct an initial performance evaluation using Performance Specifications ( PS) 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You must demonstrate that the reduction of CO emissions meets the required percent reduction using the first 4 hour average after a successful performance evaluation. Your measurements at the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent oxygen or equivalent carbon dioxide content. 3. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using non selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR), you must install a CPMS to continuously monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst. You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are achieving the required formaldehyde percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst. 4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, California Air Resources Board ( CARB) Method 430, or EPA Solid Waste ( SW)   846 Method 0011 to demonstrate that the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust is less than or equal to the emission limit, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, that applies to you. To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The initial performance test must be conducted at the lowest load at which you will operate your stationary RICE and at the typical load at which you will operate your stationary RICE. This initial performance test establishes the lowest load or the minimum fuel flow rate at which you may operate your stationary RICE. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must also install a CPMS to continuously monitor stationary RICE load or fuel flow rate and other ( if any)

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77835 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating parameters approved by the Administrator. If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde, you must also petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations or approval of no additional operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your petition for additional operating limitations, the operating limitations must also be established during the initial performance test. If you petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations, your petition must include the following: ( 1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as additional operating limitations; ( 2) a discussion of the relationship between the parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in the parameters, and how limitations on the parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 3) a discussion of how you will establish the upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which will establish the limits on the parameters in the operating limitations; ( 4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor the parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; and ( 5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring the parameters. If you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating limitations, your petition must include the following: ( 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 those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 4) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on these parameters in operating limitations; ( 5) for the parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion identifying the methods you could use to measure the parameters 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.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to all stationary RICE meeting various specified emission and operating limitations. If your stationary RICE is required to meet specific emission and operating limitations, then you are required to comply with the emission and operating limitations at all times, except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. You must also operate and maintain your stationary RICE, air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment according to good air pollution control practices at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must conduct all monitoring at all times that the stationary RICE is operating, except during periods of malfunction of the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs or quality assurance or control activities, such as calibration checks. 1. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower, complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must conduct quarterly performance tests for CO and oxygen using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required CO percent reduction is achieved. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO percent reduction requirement, you must continuously monitor and record the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. The 4 hour rolling average of the valid data must be within the operating limitations. If you change your oxidation catalyst ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature. 2. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower, complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation using an oxidation catalyst, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously monitor and record the CO concentration at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst and calculate the percent reduction of CO emissions hourly. The reduction of CO must be at least the required percent reduction, based on a rolling 4 hour average, averaged every hour. You must also conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. 3. For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by continuously monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. The 4 hour rolling average of the valid data must be above and/ or below the lower bounds and/ or upper bounds of the operating parameters corresponding to compliance with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions. If you change your NSCR ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the values of the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. The 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower must also conduct semiannual performance tests to demonstrate that the percent reduction for formaldehyde emissions is achieved. If you demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction requirement for two successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation from the percent reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual performance tests. 4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the following requirements must be met: a. Proper maintenance. At all times, the owner or operator shall maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. b. Continued operation. Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), the owner or operator VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77836 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules shall conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that the unit is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out of control periods, and required quality assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of calculating data averages. The owner or operator shall use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limitations, you must continuously monitor and record the operating load or fuel flow rate of the stationary RICE, and the values of any other parameters which have been approved by the Administrator as operating limitations. The 4 hour rolling average of the operating load or fuel flow rate must be no lower than 5 percent below the operating limitations established during the initial performance test. After completion of the initial performance test, you must demonstrate that formaldehyde emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit by performing semiannual performance tests. If you demonstrate compliance with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for two successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of formaldehyde emissions from the formaldehyde concentration limit, you must return to semiannual performance tests. Also, if your stationary RICE will be operated at a load that is lower than the load at which you operated the stationary RICE during the initial performance test, you must conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum values for the stationary RICE.

G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available To Measure These Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde? Continuous emissions monitoring systems are available which can accurately measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission control device. Our PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, however, has not been updated recently and does not reflect the performance capabilities of the systems. We are currently undertaking a review of PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, and in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of CO CEMS to accurately measure the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission control device. Similarly, our Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) test method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, CARB Method 430, as well as EPA SW   846 Method 0011 can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde concentrations in the exhaust of a stationary RICE as low as 350 parts per billion by volume, dry basis ( ppbvd). Similar to our current performance specifications for CO CEMS, as both of these test methods are currently written, they do not provide for this level of accuracy. The methods must be used with some revisions to achieve such accuracy. As a result, we are currently undertaking a review of our FTIR method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to incorporate revisions to ensure it can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde concentrations as low as 8 ppbvd in the exhaust from a stationary RICE. In conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on revisions to Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to ensure accurate measurement of such low concentrations of formaldehyde. In addition, we are also proposing another EPA method for measuring formaldehyde from natural gas fired stationary RICE. This impinger based method, EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas fired Stationary Sources   Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method, may be an acceptable method for measuring low concentrations as required by the proposed rule.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? If you own or operate a stationary RICE which is located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an initial notification, notification of performance test or evaluation, and a notification of compliance for each stationary RICE which must comply with the specified emission and operating limitations. In addition, you must submit an initial notification for each stationary RICE which operates exclusively as an emergency power/ limited use unit or a stationary RICE which combusts digester gas or landfill gas as primary fuel. You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations ( if applicable) as required by the proposed rule. Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. Records must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained offsite for the remaining 3 years. You must submit a compliance report semiannually. This report should contain information including company name and address, a statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, and a statement of compliance or documentation of any deviation from the requirements of the proposed rule during the reporting period.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?

Stationary RICE are listed as a major source category for regulatory development under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA allows us discretion in defining the appropriate scope of the category and subcategories. We considered several criteria associated with stationary RICE which could lead to establishment of subcategories including differences in emission characteristics, fuel, mode of operation, size of source, and type of source. We identified four subcategories of stationary RICE located at major sources: ( 1) Emergency power/ limited use units, ( 2) stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, ( 3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, and ( 4) other stationary RICE. We identified emergency power/ limited use units as a subcategory. Emergency power/ limited use units operate only in emergencies, such as a loss of power provided by another source. These types of stationary RICE operate infrequently and, when called upon to operate, must respond without failure and without lengthy periods of startup. These conditions limit the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77837 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/ limited use units. Similarly, stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel were identified as a subcategory. Landfill and digester gases contain a family of chemicals referred to as siloxanes, which limits the application of HAP emission control technology. Stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less were also identified as a subcategory. We know very little about these stationary RICE and without further knowledge have concerns about the applicability of HAP emission control technology to them. As discussed above, we have not addressed these stationary RICE in the proposed rule. Finally, in considering the fourth subcategory ( i. e., other stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions), we identified four additional subcategories of stationary RICE within this fourth subcategory: ( 1) 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) 4SLB stationary RICE, ( 3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and ( 4) CI stationary RICE. The further subcategorization is necessary because engine design characteristics, HAP emissions, and the application of HAP emission control technology differ among the subcategories. For further information on our rationale for subcategorization, see the memorandum entitled `` Subcategorization of Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines for the Purpose of NESHAP'' in the docket. Stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands are not covered by the proposed rule since they will be covered by a separate NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.

B. What Is the Affected Source?

The affected source for the proposed rule is any stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions with a manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower and not being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand.

C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?

1. Overview As established in section 112( d) of the CAA, the emission standards must be no less stringent than the MACT floor, which for existing sources is the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. The MACT floor for new sources must be no less stringent than the level of emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. As outlined below, the MACT floors and MACT for existing and new stationary RICE were developed primarily through analyses of the population database and the emissions database. The population database provides population information on operating stationary RICE in the United States and was constructed to support the proposed rule. The population database contains information from available databases, such as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System, the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group, and State and local agencies' databases. The first version of the database was released in 1997. Subsequent versions have been released reflecting additional or updated data. The most recent release of the database is version 4, released in November 1998. The population database contains information on approximately 28,000 stationary RICE. We believe the current stationary RICE population is about 37,000, including those under 500 horsepower and those at area sources, therefore, we believe the population database represents about 75 percent of the stationary RICE in the United States. As a result, we believe the information in the population database is representative of the stationary RICE industry subject to the proposed rule. The emissions database is a compilation of available HAP emission test reports created to support the proposed rule. The majority of HAP emission test reports were conducted in the State of California as part of the Air Toxics `` Hot Spots'' Information Assessment Act of 1987 program. Complete copies of HAP emission test reports for stationary RICE were gathered from air districts in California and taken from a previous EPA effort referred to as the Source Test Information Retrieval System. Other States and trade associations such as Western States Petroleum Association and Gas Research Institute ( GRI) were contacted for available HAP emission test reports. Finally, the emissions database also includes preliminary results from a joint EPA industry HAP emission testing program on stationary RICE at the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory at Colorado State University ( CSU).

2. General We considered several approaches to identify MACT floors for stationary RICE. One approach was to review State regulations and permits for stationary RICE. We found no State regulations or State permits which specifically limit HAP emissions from stationary RICE. Another approach we considered to identify MACT floors for stationary RICE was that of good combustion practices. We tried to identify specific practices which might be considered improved maintenance or operation, such as frequent checks or tune ups, which serve to maintain a stationary RICE in good operating condition. We thought the use of such practices might prevent increases in HAP emissions which could arise from poor operation or failure of a stationary RICE. Toward that end, we contacted State and local permitting authorities, as well as the manufacturers and the owners and operators of stationary RICE. A more detailed discussion is presented in `` Pollution Prevention for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket. We were unable to identify any specific good combustion practices from these efforts which we could relate directly to reduced HAP emissions. As mentioned above, the primary approach we ultimately used to identify MACT floors and MACT was to review information in the population and emissions databases. We reviewed the information in the databases to identify stationary RICE operating with emission control systems and then to identify the level of performance, in terms of HAP emissions reductions, associated with the use of the emission control systems. We reviewed MACT floors and MACT for the four subcategories separately. The MACT for emergency power/ limited use units and landfill/ digester gas units are discussed later in this preamble. As discussed above, we did not address engines with manufacturer's nameplate ratings at or below 500 brake horsepower in the proposed rule nor do we address stationary RICE that are tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands. The MACT for other stationary RICE are discussed below. We found several stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems and several operating with NSCR systems. Oxidation catalyst systems have been installed primarily to reduce CO emissions and, to some extent, volatile organic compounds ( VOC) emissions, from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. Non selective catalytic reduction systems, on the other hand, have been installed primarily to reduce nitrogen oxides ( NOX) emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE. Examination of HAP emission data from the emissions database, as well as preliminary emission data from HAP emission testing at CSU leads us to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77838 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules conclude that oxidation catalyst systems will reduce HAP emissions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, as discussed further below. Similarly, examination of HAP emission data leads us to conclude that NSCR will reduce HAP emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE.

3. Existing Source MACT Floor for Other Stationary RICE Subcategory As mentioned in the previous section, MACT floors for existing RICE could not be established based on State and local permit information because there are no State or local regulations for RICE regarding HAP and the use of good operating practices because no operating practices could be specifically linked to HAP emissions reductions. Review of the population database indicates that few existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE use oxidation catalyst systems. The number is less than 1 percent for 2SLB stationary RICE, about 3 percent for 4SLB stationary RICE, and less than 1 percent for CI stationary RICE. In addition, less than 1 percent of existing CI stationary RICE use a catalyzed diesel particulate filter ( C   DPF), which is believed to reduce HAP emissions to some extent. However, all of these percentages are well below the criteria for a MACT floor that would require emissions reductions for existing sources ( average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources). We have interpreted average emission limitation of the best performing 12 percent to refer to either the numerical mean or the numerical median. In this case, EPA has used the median value, that is, the level of control at the 6th ( best performing) percentile to determine the average. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for existing 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE is no emissions reductions. Unlike the situation outlined above, more than 6 percent of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for 4SRB existing stationary RICE is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved by the use of NSCR systems. We discuss this in more detail below.

4. Existing Source MACT To determine MACT for the subcategories of existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE, we evaluated two regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor. Specifically, we considered the use of oxidation catalyst systems as a beyond the floor regulatory alternative and fuel switching. With one exception noted below, these are the only options we know of which could serve as the basis for MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the subcategories of stationary RICE. In our review of oxidation catalyst systems, we concluded that this alternative would be inappropriate given the cost per ton of HAP removed. Non air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects were not significant factors. The second option considered was to switch fuels in existing RICE from fuels which result in higher HAP emissions to fuels that result in lower HAP emissions. When we compared the CAA section 112 HAP emissions factors of the various fuels from RICE, using the July 2000 revision of Chapter 3.2 ( Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) and the October 1996 revision of Chapter 3.3 ( Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines) of `` Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP   42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,'' we could not find a fuel that was clearly less HAP emitting. The summation of emission factors for various HAP when using natural gas ( usually considered the cleanest fuel) or diesel fuel were comparable based on the emission factor information that is available. Therefore, we could find no basis to consider fuel switching as a beyond the floor HAP emissions reductions option. For existing compression ignition stationary RICE, we also considered another beyond the floor regulatory alternative, the use of C   DPF. Some believe the use of such filters will reduce HAP emissions; however, there are no data available to quantify what the level of the reduction might be. Most speculate that it is less than that achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The cost of C   DPF, however, is greater than that of oxidation catalyst systems and, for that reason, we consider the alternative to also be inappropriate as well. Non air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects were not significant factors. We conclude, therefore, that MACT for existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). As a result, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE. For further information on the determination of MACT, refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule and memoranda entitled `` Regulatory Alternatives and MACT for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' and `` National Impacts Associated with Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology other than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to existing 4SRB RICE. Therefore, we are unable to identify any beyond the floor regulatory alternative for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for existing 4SRB stationary RICE is also equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of NSCR systems). To determine the level of performance associated with the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE, we examined HAP emission data from the emissions database. We also examined a recent industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR. Emission testing to measure HAP emitted from stationary RICE is very expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission data mentioned above to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions. We focused on CO emissions initially because CO is easy to measure. In addition, CEMS for CO emissions are readily available and, in most cases, the costs associated with their use are considered reasonable. Unfortunately, there is not a good relationship between CO emission concentration or CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions concentrations or HAP emissions reductions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR. Thus, CO emission concentration and CO emission reduction cannot serve as surrogates for HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE. Next, we considered the use of formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant present in the highest concentrations in emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE and, more importantly, the level of formaldehyde emissions are related to the level of other HAP emissions. When formaldehyde emissions are reduced through the use of NSCR systems, HAP emissions are reduced as well. Consequently, we conclude that reductions in formaldehyde emissions can serve as a surrogate for reductions in HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE operating with NSCR systems.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77839 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules The emissions database contains several emission test reports that measured formaldehyde emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR, but no tests measure the emissions both before and after the control device, so the control efficiency of NSCR systems could not be determined from the emissions database. Moreover, the test reports in the emissions database provide single snapshot emission readings from stationary RICE, which does not account for variability of emissions that may occur as engines are operated in actual use. The data, for example, provided little or no information regarding variable parameters such as timing and load. As a result, we examined data from an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR to determine the level of performance of NSCR systems. These test reports were reviewed, and we concluded that the engines and control devices were operated correctly during the tests and the tests were conducted properly. We considered several factors, such as load, which could have an effect on the efficiency of the control device, but could find no reason for the variability of the test results between the two engines. We selected the best performing engine based on the highest average formaldehyde percent reduction. The average reduction was 79 percent for that engine; however, to establish variability, we looked at each of the 12 individual test runs performed on that engine. The percent reduction varied from 75 percent to 81 percent. We selected 75 percent for the MACT floor, which takes into account the variability of the best performing engine. The HAP emission data outlined above show that the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE will reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more. As a result, we propose a 75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions as the emission limitation for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. For existing 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction technology that is not an NSCR system, an alternative standard was developed based on a formaldehyde concentration limit. For existing 4SRB engines the alternative emission limitation is 350 ppbvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in more detail below. 5. New Source MACT Floor Several existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE currently operate with oxidation catalyst systems. No technology achieving greater emissions reductions was found. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new CI stationary RICE is the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The level of HAP reductions achieved through oxidation catalysts differs for each of the subcategories as discussed in more detail below. Again, for new compression ignition stationary RICE, we considered whether the use of C   DPF might be the basis for the MACT floor. However, since oxidation catalyst systems achieve greater HAP emissions reductions, we concluded that oxidation catalyst systems, not C   DPF, are the basis for the MACT floor for new compression ignition stationary RICE. As mentioned earlier, a number of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. As a result, the use of NSCR systems is the best performing technology identified for use by 4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude the MACT floor for new 4SRB stationary RICE is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved through the use of NSCR systems.

6. New Source MACT For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of oxidation catalyst systems ( other than possibly the use of C   DPF on compression ignition stationary RICE, as discussed earlier). The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI RICE. Therefore, we were unable to identify any beyond the floor regulatory alternative for these subcategories of stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new CI stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems). Although the basis for MACT for each of these subcategories of stationary RICE is the same, as outlined below, HAP emission data from the emissions database and preliminary emission data from the HAP emission testing program at CSU indicate that the level of performance achieved by oxidation catalyst systems on each of these subcategories of stationary RICE differ. As a result, we propose different emission limitations for each of these subcategories of new stationary RICE. As mentioned above, emission testing to measure HAP emissions is expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission data to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions. Again, we focused on CO emission concentration and CO emissions reductions initially. In this case, we found that there is a good relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE equipped with oxidation catalyst systems. When CO emissions are reduced, HAP emissions are reduced in a relatively proportional manner. As a result, CO emissions reductions can serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems. A joint EPA industry HAP emission testing program at CSU provided HAP and CO emissions data which form the basis for the MACT floor and MACT for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE. A single engine of each type equipped with an oxidation catalyst control system was tested. The engines were all overhauled before the testing and were expected to operate as well as new engines. The oxidation catalyst control systems represented the best HAP emission control known for each type of engine. All catalyst systems were new but were operated for a number of hours until the CO percent reduction stabilized. This assured that the performance would be not overestimated by the use of a new catalyst. Prior to the testing, EPA and industry developed a list of engine operating parameters that were known to vary throughout the U. S. for each type of engine. The engines and control devices were tested at typical engine conditions in which these operating parameters were varied. The variations in the emission reduction results for each engine type are due to the variability of the engine and control system and include a representation of the performance of the best controlled source for new engines. The fluctuations in HAP emission control represent the variability inherent in operating the engine and control device combination under various conditions. Some parameters such as the exhaust temperature are an important determinate of the catalytic activity and resulting emissions reductions but VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77840 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules cannot be controlled by the operator because they are a result of factors such as engine design, ambient temperature, and designed air to fuel ratio. These result in a significant source of variability that cannot be controlled. The HAP emission data mentioned above show that the use of oxidation catalyst systems on 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE will reduce uncontrolled CO emissions by 60 percent or more, 93 percent or more, and 70 percent or more, respectively, taking into account the variability of results achieved when tested under various operating parameters. As a result, we propose: ( 1) A 60 percent or more reduction in CO uncontrolled emissions as the emission limitation for new 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) a 93 percent or more reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new 4SLB stationary RICE, and ( 3) a 70 percent or more reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new CI stationary RICE. The variation in percent reduction of CO achieved between 2SLB stationary RICE and 4SLB stationary RICE is a result of the higher exhaust temperatures for 4SLB stationary RICE. The 2SLB stationary RICE tested at CSU had an average exhaust temperature of 530 degrees Fahrenheit, while the 4SLB stationary RICE had an average exhaust temperature of 691 degrees Fahrenheit. In general, higher exhaust temperatures lead to better catalyst performance. This difference in temperatures is a function of the inherent design of these engine types and cannot be controlled by the operator. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to new 4SRB RICE. As a result, we were unable to identify any beyond the floor regulatory alternative. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of NSCR systems). The basis for MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE, therefore, is the same as that for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. We believe NSCR systems will achieve the same level of performance on existing as well as new 4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we propose the same emission limitation for both existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE ( i. e., 75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions). For new 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction technology that is not an NSCR system, and for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines that choose a control or reduction technology that is not an oxidation catalyst system, an alternative standard was developed based on formaldehyde concentration limits. The alternative emission limits for new RICE sources are: 17 parts per million by volume dry basis ( ppmvd) formaldehyde for 2SLB engines, 14 ppmvd formaldehyde for 4SLB engines, 350 ppbvd formaldehyde for 4SRB engines, and 580 ppbvd formaldehyde for CI engines, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in more detail below.

7. MACT Floor and MACT for Other Subcategories Although the proposed rule applies to all stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at major sources excluding stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands, there are two subcategories of stationary RICE for which the appropriate emission standard is no emissions reductions; therefore, they would not be required to comply with any emissions limitations or operating limitations under the proposed rule. These subcategories are stationary RICE which combust digester or landfill gas as the primary fuel and emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE.

a. Stationary RICE Combusting Digester or Landfill Gas Examination of the population database shows that there are no stationary RICE burning digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel operating with emission control technologies which reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE. We considered the applicability of HAP emission control technology, such as the use of an oxidation catalyst system for example, to this subcategory of stationary RICE for beyond the floor controls. However, digester gases and landfill gases contain a family of silicon based compounds called siloxanes. Combustion of siloxanes can foul post combustion catalysts, rendering them inoperable within a short period of time. We considered pretreatment systems to remove siloxanes from the gases prior to combustion; however, we found no pretreatment systems in use and the long term effectiveness is unknown. As a result, we know of no emission control technology which could be applied to the subcategory of stationary RICE to reduce HAP emissions. We also considered fuel switching for this subcategory of RICE. Switching to a different fuel such as natural gas or diesel would potentially allow the RICE to apply the MACT controls. However, fuel switching would defeat the purpose of these units, which are intended to use this type of fuel. Fuel switching would also cause the landfill/ digester gas either to escape uncontrolled or to be burned in a flare with no energy recovery. We believe that switching landfill or digester gas to another fuel is inappropriate and is an environmentally inferior option. For that reason, we were unable to identify a beyond the floor regulatory alternative for either existing or new stationary RICE combusting digester gases or landfill gases as the primary fuel. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for the subcategory of stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). Thus, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for stationary RICE which combust landfill gases or digester gases as the primary fuels.

b. Emergency Power/ Limited Use Stationary RICE Emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE operate only in emergencies when the normal source of power at a facility fails. Based on our review of the population database, there are no emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE which operate with HAP emission control technology. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE. As with stationary RICE burning digester gases or landfill gases, we also have a number of concerns regarding the applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE. Emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE operate infrequently but when called upon to operate, they must respond immediately without fail and without lengthy startup periods. Under such conditions, we have doubts whether HAP emission control technology, such as the use of oxidation catalyst systems, would effectively reduce HAP emissions. Despite the concerns, we examined the cost per ton of HAP removed for emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE as a beyond the floor regulatory alternative. Whether our concerns are warranted or not, we consider the cost per ton of HAP removed for the alternative unreasonable, primarily because of the very small reductions in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77841 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules HAP emissions which might be achieved. Non air quality health, environmental impacts, nor energy effects were significant factors. For all of the reasons listed above, we conclude that MACT for both existing as well as new emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). Consequently, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE.

D. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE of 500 Brake Horsepower or Less?

In reviewing the population database to identify stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, we found extremely little information. In discussions with State and local permitting officials, the manufacturers, and some of the owners and operators of stationary RICE, we found that such small stationary RICE have generally not been regarded as significant sources of air pollutant emissions. As a result, the small stationary RICE have not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, examination, or review as larger stationary RICE. Little information has been gathered or compiled by anyone for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Thus, at this point, we know very little about stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less. For example, we do not know how many of the small stationary RICE exist. In addition, we know little about the operating characteristics and emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control technologies, the costs of emission control for the small stationary RICE, or the economic impacts and benefits associated with regulation. In the absence of such information, we have concerns with the applicability of HAP emission control technology to these stationary RICE. As a result, we believe it is appropriate to defer a decision on regulation of stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less until further information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed. We believe this subcategory of stationary RICE is likely to be more similar to stationary RICE located at area sources than to stationary RICE located at major sources. Thus, we plan to include this subcategory of stationary RICE in our considerations to develop regulations for stationary RICE located at area sources. E. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources?

The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at area sources. In developing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy ( 64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999), we identified stationary RICE at area sources as a category which would be subject to standards to protect the environment and the public health and satisfy the statutory requirements in section 112 of the CAA pertaining to area sources. We are not setting standards at this time, because of insufficient information regarding the operating characteristics and the emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control technologies to stationary RICE at area sources, the costs of emission control for such stationary RICE, and the economic impacts and benefits associated with regulation of the stationary RICE.

F. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

1. CO Percent Reduction Standard We are proposing a CO percent reduction standard if you use an oxidation catalyst to reduce HAP emissions from new or reconstructed 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. A control efficiency for CO was chosen because CO control is a surrogate for HAP control for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and because it is easier to monitor CO than several HAP.

2. Formaldehyde Percent Reduction Standard We are proposing a formaldehyde percent reduction standard if you use NSCR to reduce HAP emissions from existing, new, and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE. A control efficiency for formaldehyde was chosen because formaldehyde control is a surrogate for HAP control for 4SRB stationary RICE, and because a good relationship was not found between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions for 4SRB stationary RICE.

3. Formaldehyde Concentration Limit We are also proposing alternative emission limitations to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines not using oxidation catalyst control systems and for existing and new 4SRB engines not using NSCR control systems. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI stationary RICE using an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the CO percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the alternative emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE using NSCR, you must comply with the formaldehyde percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than NSCR, you must comply with the alternative emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. As mentioned earlier, we know of no other emission control technology other than oxidation catalyst and NSCR systems which can be used to reduce HAP emissions from stationary RICE. However, we would like to promote the development and eventual use of alternative emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions, and we believe alternative emission limitations written as formaldehyde concentration limits will serve to do so. For the alternative emission limitation, we propose to use formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the highest concentrations from stationary RICE. In addition, the emission data show that formaldehyde emission levels and other HAP emission levels are related, in the sense that when emissions of one are lowered, emissions of the other are lowered. That leads us to conclude that emission control technologies which lead to reductions in formaldehyde emissions will lead to reductions in other HAP emissions. The alternative emission limitation is in units of parts per billion by volume or parts per million by volume, and all measurements are corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, to provide a common basis. A volume concentration was chosen for these emission limitations to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust because it can be measured directly. We utilized the same data used to establish the percent reduction requirements to determine the alternative emission limitation for each subcategory. As with the control efficiencies discussed previously, the concentrations for the formaldehyde emission limitations are based on the minimum level of control achieved by the best controlled source for each type of engine. This approach takes into account the variability of the best performing engine. For the 2SLB engine tested at CSU, the controlled VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77842 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules formaldehyde emissions ranged from 7.5 parts per million ( ppm) to 17 ppm; therefore, we selected 17 ppm for the emission limitation. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for the 4SLB engine tested at CSU ranged from 6.4 ppm to 14 ppm. We chose the highest controlled level of 14 ppm for the alternative standard for the 4SLB subcategory. Similarly, for the CI engine tested at CSU, the controlled formaldehyde emissions ranged from 130 to 580 parts per billion ( ppb), and we, therefore, set an emission limitation of 580 ppb for the CI subcategory. For 4SRB engines, we chose the best performing engine from the industry testing. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for this engine ranged from 330 to 350 ppb. In summary, the alternative emission limitations are: 17 ppmvd for 2SLB stationary RICE; 14 ppmvd for 4SLB stationary RICE; 350 ppbvd for 4SRB stationary RICE; and 580 ppbvd for CI stationary RICE, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen.

G. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements? The tests which formed the basis of the proposed emission limitations were conducted following EPA or CARB test methods. The proposed rule requires the use of EPA or CARB test methods to determine compliance. This ensures that the same analytical methods that were followed to collect the emission data upon which the emission limitations are based will be followed for compliance testing. By using the same methods, we eliminate the possibility of measurement bias influencing determinations of compliance. In an effort to identify the most feasible testing and compliance requirements for stationary RICE, we considered the applicability of several compliance and monitoring options. The results of these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower, and stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower. We selected less burdensome compliance requirements for smaller size stationary RICE considering the ratio of total control and monitoring costs to the equipment cost. For smaller size stationary RICE, we considered the ratio excessive. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we decided to require an initial performance test for CO. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the CO percent reduction emission limitation; to establish the initial pressure drop across the catalyst, which will serve as the reference point for continuous monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst; and also to demonstrate that the catalyst inlet temperature is within the specified operating limitations. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, an initial performance evaluation is required to validate the performance of the CEMS for continuous monitoring of CO emissions. Initial compliance with the CO emission limitation must then be demonstrated by using CO emission measurements from the first 4 hour period following a successful performance evaluation of the CO CEMS. For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent using NSCR, an initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde percent reduction emission limitation and to establish the initial values of the operating parameters that will be continuously monitored ( i. e., pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the initial temperature rise across the catalyst). For all stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, an initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde concentration limit and also to establish the values of the operating limitations ( i. e., either operating load or fuel flow rate and any other parameters which are approved by the Administrator as operating limitations), which will be continuously monitored.

H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? Continuous compliance is required at all times except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. As mentioned above, we considered the applicability of several compliance and monitoring options for stationary RICE. The results of these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower and stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we considered several options: ( 1) A CEMS for CO; ( 2) semiannual stack testing for CO using Method 10A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; ( 3) quarterly stack testing with a portable CO monitor using American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) D6522   00, and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; and ( 4) initial stack testing for CO with a portable CO monitor using ASTM D6522   00 and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. We consider the control and monitoring costs for the first two options excessive, but consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the third option reasonable. As a result, 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation must perform quarterly stack testing for CO using a portable CO monitor. The quarterly testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. In addition to quarterly stack testing for CO, the stationary RICE are required to continuously monitor pressure drop across the catalyst and catalyst inlet temperature. The parameters serve as surrogates of the oxidation catalyst performance. The pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the oxidation catalyst is damaged or fouled, in which case, catalyst performance would decrease. If the pressure drop across the catalyst deviates by more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the oxidation catalyst might be damaged or fouled. If you VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77843 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules change the oxidation catalyst ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the pressure drop across the catalyst. The catalyst inlet temperature is a requirement for proper performance of the oxidation catalyst. In general, the oxidation catalyst performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature decreases. In addition, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high ( above 1,250 degrees Fahrenheit), it might be an indication of ignition misfiring, poisoning, or fouling, which would decrease oxidation catalyst performance. In addition, the oxidation catalyst requires inlet temperatures to be greater than or equal to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for the reduction of HAP emissions. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we considered the same four monitoring options. For these larger size stationary RICE, however, we consider the control and monitoring costs for a CO CEMS reasonable. We consider the use of CEMS to be the best means of ensuring continuous compliance with emission limitations. Consequently, the large 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE are required to use a CO CEMS. An annual RATA and daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1, are also required to ensure that performance of the CEMS does not deteriorate over time. There are no operating limitations for the larger size stationary RICE in the subcategories since the CEMS continuously measures CO and will indicate any deviation from the emission limitations. For 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, we also considered three monitoring options: ( 1) A CEMS for formaldehyde; ( 2) stack testing for formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW   846 Method 0011 with an initial frequency of semiannually which, following two consecutive stack tests demonstrating compliance, could decrease to annual stack testing and continuous parametric monitoring; and ( 3) initial stack testing for formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW   846 Method 0011 and continuous parametric monitoring. We consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the first option excessive for all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR. For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of more than 5000 brake horsepower, we consider the control and monitoring costs of the second option reasonable. Consequently, we chose that option for the larger size 4SRB stationary RICE. For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower, we also consider the control and monitoring costs of the second option excessive. We consider the control and monitoring costs of the third option reasonable, and we chose that option for the smaller 4SRB stationary RICE. For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst with a CPMS is also required. The operating parameters serve as surrogates of the NSCR system performance. As with oxidation catalyst systems for lean burn and CI stationary RICE, the pressure drop across an NSCR system is an indication of catalyst performance on 4SRB stationary RICE. The operating limitations are also the same   maintain the pressure drop across the catalyst within two inches of water from the pressure drop measured during the initial performance test. If you change your NSCR ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. As for oxidation catalyst control devices, the performance of NSCR is also dependent on catalyst inlet temperature. Catalyst inlet temperature should be maintained between 750 degrees Fahrenheit and 1250 degrees Fahrenheit for proper activation of the catalyst. Temperatures lower than that fail to activate the catalyst to its full potential, while temperatures higher than that can sinter and damage the active sites of the catalyst. In addition, the temperature rise across the catalyst is also an indication of NSCR performance. If the temperature rise across the catalyst is more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, that might be an indication that the NSCR is being damaged or fouled. In that case, catalyst performance would decrease, lowering HAP reductions. For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust of the stationary RICE, we also considered requiring a CEMS. However, we consider the costs of a formaldehyde CEMS to be excessive. A reasonable alternative to a formaldehyde CEMS, however, is a CPMS ( supplemented by periodic compliance tests). Hazardous air pollutant emissions from stationary RICE correlate with operating load; HAP emissions increase as load decreases. As a result, if a stationary RICE operates at loads greater than that at which compliance has been demonstrated through a performance test, there is a reasonable assurance that the stationary RICE remains in compliance. An alternative to monitoring operating load is monitoring the stationary RICE's fuel flow rate. Fuel flow rate is an indicator of operating load. As a result, we propose that stationary RICE which comply with the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust monitor continuously operating load or fuel flow rate as operating limitations. The intention is to measure formaldehyde at the lowest load at which the stationary RICE will be operated to establish compliance at that load level. By monitoring operating load or fuel flow rate, sources can ensure that they do not operate at load or fuel flow rate conditions ( within 5 percent) below which compliance has not been demonstrated. In addition, sources complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust are required to conduct semiannual performance tests. Semiannual performance testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the formaldehyde concentration limit. To reduce the cost burden of performance testing, sources that show compliance for two successive performance tests may reduce performance testing frequency. We believe that a reduction to one performance test per year will provide sufficient assurance of stationary RICE performance while reducing the performance testing costs for the affected source. However, if a subsequent annual performance test indicates a deviation from the formaldehyde concentration limit, the source must resume semiannual performance testing. The source must include a notification to the Administrator in their semiannual compliance report stating that they will be reducing the frequency of performance testing.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules I. What Monitoring and Testing Methods are Available to Measure These Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde?

We believe CEMS are available which can measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust from a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. Our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, however, have not been updated recently and do not reflect the performance capabilities of such systems at these low CO concentration levels. As a result, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of state ofthe art CO CEMS and their ability to accurately measure the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also solicit comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to ensure the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to determine compliance with the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions. In addition, we solicit comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance specifications for CO CEMS. The proposed rule specifies the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the CO CEMS. We also believe Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as those experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. However, the performance criteria in addenda A of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, have not been revised recently and are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at the low CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target concentrations as low as 5 ppm CO in some cases. We also expect that dual range instruments will be necessary to measure CO concentrations at the inlet and at the outlet of an oxidation catalyst emission control device. As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A. We also solicit comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A, while also meeting the remaining addenda A performance criteria. With regard to formaldehyde, we believe systems meeting the requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, a self validating FTIR method, can be used to attain detection limits for formaldehyde concentrations below 350 ppbvd. Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, also includes formaldehyde spike recovery criteria which require spike recoveries of 70 to 130 percent. While we believe FTIR systems can meet Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and measure formaldehyde concentrations at the low levels, we have limited experience with their use. As a result, we solicit comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions. We also believe EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and CARB Method 430 are capable of measuring formaldehyde concentrations at the low levels from 4SRB engines. Accordingly, we solicit comments on the use of EPA Method 323, CARB 430, and EPA SW   846 Method 0011 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde for 4SRB engines. Based on the comments we receive on CO CEMS, we anticipate revising Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and our PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS to ensure the installation and use of CEMS suitable for determining compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions. Similarly, based on the comments we receive on FTIR systems and Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, we may develop additional or revised criteria for the use of FTIR systems and/ or Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. On the other hand, if the comments we receive lead us to conclude that CO CEMS are not capable of being used to determine compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions, there are several alternatives we may consider. One alternative would be to delete the proposed percent reduction emission limitation for CO and require compliance with a comparable formaldehyde percent reduction limitation. That alternative would require periodic stack emission testing before and after the control device and would also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. Another alternative would be to delete the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions and require compliance with the proposed emission limitation for formaldehyde. That alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and could also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations. Another alternative would be to require the use of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ( i. e., FTIR systems) to determine compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions. That alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations, as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. Yet another alternative would be to delete the emission limitations for both CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions and adopt an emission limitation consisting of an equipment and work practice requirement. That alternative would require the use of oxidation catalyst control systems for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and NSCR systems for 4SRB stationary RICE which meet specific and narrow design and operating criteria. We believe the emission limitations we are proposing for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are superior to these alternatives for a number of reasons. However, we solicit comments on the alternatives should we conclude that the proposed emission limitations for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are inappropriate because of difficulties in monitoring or measuring CO emissions or formaldehyde emissions to determine compliance. We also solicit suggestions and recommendations for other alternatives should we conclude the proposed emission limitations are inappropriate because of monitoring or measurement difficulties.

J. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?

The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are based on the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77845 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

The proposed rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary RICE by an estimated 5,000 tons/ year in the 5th year after the standards are implemented. We believe approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule. In addition, we believe that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule each year for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5th year, it is estimated that 8,100 new stationary RICE will be subject to the proposed rule. To estimate air impacts, HAP emissions from stationary RICE were estimated using average emission factors from the emissions database. It was also assumed that each stationary RICE is operated for 6,500 hours annually. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions reductions. In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the proposed rule will reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including CO, VOC, NOX, and particulate matter ( PM). The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB engines ( the technology on which MACT for 4SRB engines is based) will also reduce NOX emissions by 90 percent. It is possible that oxidation catalyst controls could be used to meet the 4SRB emission standards, but it is expected that the costs of controls will be similar for both systems. Assuming that 60 percent of the 4SRB ( new and existing) engines that are covered by the emission standards will use NSCR, the cumulative emissions reductions of NOX by the end of the 5th year after promulgation are calculated to be about 167,900 tons per year. We are specifically soliciting comments on the percentage of 4SRB engines that would choose to install NSCR HAP controls rather than other HAP controls.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

A list of 26 model stationary RICE was developed to represent the range of existing stationary RICE. Information was obtained from catalyst vendors on equipment costs for oxidation catalyst and NSCR. This information was then used to estimate the costs of the proposed rule for each model stationary RICE following methodologies from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) Control Cost Manual. These cost estimates for model stationary RICE were extrapolated to the national population of stationary RICE in the United States, and national impacts were determined. The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for existing stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $ 68 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 38 million in the 5th year. The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for new stationary RICE by the 5th year is estimated to be approximately $ 372 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 216 million in the 5th year.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of RICE, and society as a whole. The affected engines operate in over 30 different manufacturing markets, but a large portion are located in the oil and gas exploration industry, the oil and gas pipeline ( transmission) industry, the mining and quarrying of non metallic minerals industry, the chemicals and allied products industry, and the electricity and gas services industry. Taken together, these industries can have an influence on the price and demand for fuels used in the energy market ( i. e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal). Therefore, our analysis evaluates the impacts on each of the 30 different manufacturing markets affected by the proposed rule, as well as the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized social cost ( in 1998 dollars) of the proposed rule is $ 254 million but this cost is spread across all 30 markets and the fuel markets. Overall, our analysis indicates a minimal change in prices and quantity produced in most of the fuel markets. The distribution of impacts on the fuel markets and the specific manufacturing market segments evaluated are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.

TABLE 1.   ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RICE RULE ON AFFECTED MARKET SECTORS Market sector Change in price (%) Change in market output (%) Total social cost ( millions of 1998$)

Fuel Markets: a Petroleum ............................................................................................................................. 0.005 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 6.0 Natural Gas .......................................................................................................................... 0.101 ¥ 0.014 ¥ 35.2 Electricity .............................................................................................................................. 0.022 0.001 3.2 Coal ...................................................................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.3 Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 38.3 Sectors of Energy Consumption: b Commercial Sector ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 68.4 Residential Sector ................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ¥ 40.0 Transportation Sector ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 16.2 Mining and Quarrying .................................................................................................................. 0.020 ¥ 0.006 ¥ 21.0 Food Products ............................................................................................................................. 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 5.9 Paper Products ............................................................................................................................ 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 5.2 Chemical Products ....................................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.002 ¥ 17.8 Primary Metals ............................................................................................................................. 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 6.7 Fabricated Metal Products ........................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.000 ¥ 1.8 Nonmetallic Mineral Products ...................................................................................................... 0.002 ¥ 0.002 ¥ 3.5 Construction Sector ..................................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 11.1 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.   ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RICE RULE ON AFFECTED MARKET SECTORS   Continued Market sector Change in price (%) Change in market output (%) Total social cost ( millions of 1998$)

Other Manufacturing Markets ...................................................................................................... 0.000 0.0   0.001 ¥ 17.7 a Only changes in producer surplus ( i. e., producer's share of regulatory costs) are reported for the Fuel Markets which represent the producers of energy. Sectors of energy consumption   commercial, residential, and transportation   have reported changes in consumer surplus only, and thus do not have reported changes in price and output. A combination of these costs will represent total social costs for the energy market in the economy.

Because the engines affected by the proposed rule are those that use natural gas as a fuel source, it is not surprising to see the natural gas fuel market with the largest portion of the social costs. Although the natural gas market has a greater share of the regulatory burden, the overall impact on prices is about one tenth of 1 percent, which is considered to be a minor economic impact on this industry. The change in the price of natural gas is not expected to influence the purchase decisions for new engines. Our analysis indicates that at most, less than 5 fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines will be purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the proposed rule. The electricity and coal markets may experience a slight gain in revenues due to some fuel switching from natural gas to coal or electricity. The total social welfare loss for the manufacturing industries affected by the proposed rule is estimated to be approximately $ 39.9 million for consumers and $ 44.7 million for producers in the aggregate. In comparison to the energy expenditures of these industries ( estimated to be $ 101.2 billion), the cost of the proposed rule to producers as a percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.04 percent. For consumers, the total value of shipments for the affected industries is $ 3.95 trillion in 1998, so the cost to consumers as a percentage of spending on the outputs from these industries is nearly zero, or 0.001 percent. The cost to residential consumers at $ 40.0 million is larger than for any individual manufacturing market, and about equivalent to the aggregate consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In comparison, the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is 0.03 percent of residential energy expenditures ($ 40.0 million/$ 131.06 billion). The commercial sector of energy users also experiences a moderate portion of total social costs at an estimated $ 29.3 million and represents an aggregate across all commercial North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes. As a percentage of fuel expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is 0.03 percent ($ 29.3 million/ $ 96.86 billion). The cost to transportation consumers is estimated to be $ 16.2 million. This cost represents 0.008 percent ($ 16.2 million/$ 188.13 billion) of energy expenditures for the transportation sector. Therefore, giving consideration to the minimal changes in prices and output in nearly all markets, and the fact that the regulatory costs that are shared by commercial, residential, and transportation users of fuel energy are a small fraction of typical energy expenditures in these sectors each year, we conclude that the economic impacts of the proposed rule will not be significant to any one sector of the economy.

D. What Are the Non Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts? We do not expect any significant wastewater, solid waste, or energy impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Energy impacts associated with the proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption that the proposed rule would require by installing and operating control equipment. The only energy requirement for the operation of the control technologies is a very small increase in fuel consumption resulting from back pressure caused by the emission control system.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation A. General We are requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, such as the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well as aspects you may feel have not been addressed. Specifically, we request comments on the performance capabilities of state ofthe art CO CEMS and their ability to measure the low concentrations of CO in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also request comments with recommendations on changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10. In addition, we request comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance specifications for CO CEMS, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and addenda A to Method 10. As also mentioned earlier, we request comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde emissions. In addition, we request comments on the use of CARB 430 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde. In addition, we request any HAP emissions test data available from stationary RICE; however, if you submit HAP emissions test data, please submit the full and complete emission test report with these data. Without a complete emission test report, which includes sections describing the stationary RICE and its operation during the test as well as identifying the stationary RICE for purposes of verification, discussion of the test methods employed and the quality assurance/ quality control procedures followed, the raw data sheets, all the calculations, etc., which such reports contain, submittal of HAP emission data by itself is of little use.