[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34548-34572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11296]
[[Page 34547]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test
Cells/Stands; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34548]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7207-8]
RIN 2060-A174
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine
Test Cells/Stands
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for engine test cells/stands. We have
identified engine test cells/stands as major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) such as toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, and 1,3-
butadiene. These proposed NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) which requires all major sources of HAP to meet
emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). These proposed standards will protect public
health by reducing exposure to air pollution.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before July 15, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by June 3, 2002, we will hold a public hearing on June
13, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-29, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-29,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. in our Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-98-29 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jaime Pagan, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5340; facsimile number
(919) 541-0942; electronic mail (e-mail) address
``[email protected].''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file
to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems or on
disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-98-29. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Jaime Pagan, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street,
Room 740B, Durham NC 27701. We will disclose information identified as
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when we
receive it, the information may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
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-13),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5578
at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing.
Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also call
Mrs. Kelly 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 these proposed emission
standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information we considered in the development of this proposed rule. The
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket (except for interagency review
materials) will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) Materials related to this
proposed rule are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
A list of combustion related rules is available on the Combustion
Group Website on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/combust/list.html. You may obtain background information, technical documents,
and a docket index on these combustion related rules.
Regulated Entities. Subcategories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble. In general, engine test cells/stands are covered under the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
However, cells/stands classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be
subject to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability
criteria. Not all cells/stands classified under the SIC and NAICS codes
in Table 1 of this preamble will be subject to the proposed standards
because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of
the proposed NESHAP for engine test cells/stands.
[[Page 34549]]
Table 1.--Subcategories Potentially Regulated by This Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Test cells/stands used for testing SIC codes NAICS codes entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Combustion Engines with 3531, 3519, 3523, 3559, 333120, 333618, 333111, Test cells/stands used
rated power of 25 horsepower (hp) 3599, 3621, 3711, 333319, 335312, for testing internal
(19 kilowatts (kW)) or more. 3714, 4226, 4512, 336111, 336120, combustion engines
5541, 7538, 7539, 336112, 336992, with rated power of 25
8299, 8711, 8731, 336312, 336350, hp (19 kW) or more.
8734, 8741. 481111, 811111,
811118, 611692, 54171,
541380.
Internal Combustion Engines with 3519, 3621, 3524, 8734. 333618, 336399, 335312, Test cells/stands used
rated power of less than 25 hp (19 332212, 333112, 541380. for testing internal
kW). combustion engines
with rated power of
less than 25 hp (19
kW).
Combustion Turbine Engines........... 3511, 3566, 3721, 3724, 333611, 333612, 336411, Test cells/stands used
4512, 4581, 7699, 9661. 336412, 481111, for testing combustion
488190, 811310, turbine engines.
811411, 92711.
Rocket Engines....................... 3724, 3761, 3764, 9661, 336412, 336414, 336415, Test cells/stands used
9711. 54171, 92711, 92811. for testing rocket
engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your engine test cell/stand is regulated
by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 63.9285 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.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria did we use in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects associated with HAP from engine
test cells/stands?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Am I subject to this proposed rule?
B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this
proposed rule?
C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are
the emissions?
D. What are the emission 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
low concentrations of CO?
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 about engine test cells/stands located at area sources?
C. What is the affected source?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
emission limitations?
E. How did we select the format of the standard?
F. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
H. How did we select the monitoring and testing methods?
I. 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 non-air 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 Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Background
A. 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. Engine test
facilities were listed as a source category under the fuel combustion
industry group, and rocket engine test firing was listed as a source
category under the miscellaneous processes industry group in the
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today, we are
combining these two source categories for regulatory purposes under the
fuel combustion industry group and renaming the source category as
engine test cells/stands. The next revision to the source category list
under section 112 which is published in the Federal Register will
reflect this change. Major sources of HAP are those that have the
potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr
of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Did We Use 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 major sources. 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 standard is 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
[[Page 34550]]
subcategory. For new sources, the MACT standards 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 cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Engine Test
Cells/Stands?
Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP
show that several HAP are emitted from engine test cells/stands. These
HAP emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds
contained in the fuel burned. Numerous HAP are emitted from combustion
in engine test cells/stands; examples include toluene, benzene, mixed
xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene.
The health effect of primary concern for toluene is dysfunction of
the central nervous system (CNS). Toluene vapor also causes narcosis.
Controlled exposure of human subjects produced mild fatigue, weakness,
confusion, lacrimation, and paresthesia; at higher exposure levels
there were also euphoria, headache, dizziness, dilated pupils, and
nausea. After effects included nervousness, muscular fatigue, and
insomnia persisting for several days. Acute exposure may cause
irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It may also cause
fatigue, weakness, confusion, headache, and drowsiness. Very high
concentrations may cause unconsciousness and death.
Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The health effects of benzene
include nerve inflammation, CNS depression, and cardiac sensitization.
Chronic exposure to benzene can cause fatigue, nervousness,
irritability, blurred vision, and labored breathing and has produced
anorexia and irreversible injury to the blood-forming organs; effects
include aplastic anemia and leukemia. Acute exposure can cause
dizziness, euphoria, giddiness, headache, nausea, staggering gait,
weakness, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, pulmonary edema,
pneumonia, gastrointestinal irritation, convulsions, and paralysis.
Benzene can also cause irritation to the skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes.
Acute inhalation exposure to mixed xylenes in humans results in
irritation of the nose and throat, gastrointestinal effects such as
nausea, vomiting, and gastric irritation, mild transient eye
irritation, and neurological effects. Chronic inhalation exposure of
humans to mixed xylenes results primarily in CNS effects, such as
headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors and incoordination. Other effects
noted include labored breathing and impaired pulmonary function,
increased heart palpitation, severe chest pain and an abnormal
electrocardiogram, and possible effects on blood and kidneys.
Acute exposure to 1,3-butadiene by inhalation in humans results in
irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs, and causes
neurological effects such as blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and
vertigo. Epidemiological studies have reported a possible association
between 1,3-butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases. The
Department of Health and Human Services has determined that 1,3-
butadiene may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen. This is
based on animal studies that found increases in a variety of tumor
types from exposure to 1,3-butadiene. Studies on workers are
inconclusive because the workers were exposed to other chemicals in
addition to 1,3-butadiene.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Am I Subject to This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate an engine
test cell/stand which is located at a major source of HAP emissions. An
engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing uninstalled
stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines. 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.
Each new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more
which is located at a major source of HAP emissions must comply with
the requirements in this proposed rule. New or reconstructed test
cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) are not required to comply with the
emission limitation in this proposed rule, but are required to submit
an Initial Notification upon startup of the test cells/stands.
New or reconstructed test cells/stands used for testing combustion
turbine engines or new or reconstructed test cells/stands used for
testing rocket engines are not required to comply with the emission
limitation or the recordkeeping or reporting requirements in this
proposed rule.
Existing engine test cells/stands that are located at major sources
of HAP emissions are not required to comply with the emission
limitation or the recordkeeping or reporting requirements in this
proposed rule.
This proposed rule also does not apply to engine test cells/stands
that are located at area sources of HAP emissions. An area source is
any source that is not a major source of HAP emissions.
B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by This
Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule covers four subcategories of engine test cells/
stands located at major source facilities: (1) Cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp (19 kW)
or more, (2) cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines
with rated power of less than 25 hp, (3) cells/stands used for testing
combustion turbine engines, and (4) cells/stands used for testing
rocket engines. The rated power criteria for distinguishing between the
two internal combustion engine subcategories is based on the largest
engine (in terms of rated power) that is tested in the test cell/stand.
C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of
fuels in the engines being tested in the test cells/stands. Some of the
HAP present in the exhaust gases from engine test cells/stands are
toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations?
As the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed test cell/stand
used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with
rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and located at a major source of
HAP emissions, you must comply with one of the following two emission
limitations by [3 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
[[Page 34551]]
RULE IN THE Federal Register] (or upon startup if you start up your
engine test cell/stand after [3 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register]: (1) Reduce CO emissions in the exhaust
from the new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand to 5 parts per
million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) or less, at 15 percent oxygen
(O2) content; or (2) reduce CO emissions in the exhaust from
the new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand by 99.9 percent or
more. Existing test cells/stands used in whole or in part for testing
internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more
and located at a major source of HAP emissions are not required to
comply with the emission limitations.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, new or reconstructed test cells/
stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power
of less than 25 hp (19 kW), new or reconstructed test cells/stands used
for testing combustion turbine engines, and new or reconstructed test
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are not required to comply
with either emission limitation. In addition, neither existing test
cells/stands located at major sources of HAP emissions nor new,
reconstructed, or existing test cells/stands located at area sources of
HAP emissions are required to comply with the emission limitations.
E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
Your initial compliance requirements are different depending on
whether you demonstrate compliance with the outlet CO concentration
emission limitation or the percent CO reduction emission limitation. If
you choose to comply with the outlet CO concentration emission
limitation, you must install a CEMS to measure CO and O2 at
the outlet of the test cell/stand or emission control device. To
demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct an initial performance
evaluation using Performance Specifications (PS) 3 and PS4A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B. This initial performance evaluation demonstrates
that your CEMS is working properly. You must demonstrate that the
outlet concentration of CO emissions from the test cell/stand or
emission control device is 5 ppmvd or less, corrected to 15 percent
O2 content, using the first 4-hour rolling average after a
successful performance evaluation.
If you comply with the percent reduction emission limitation, you
must install two CEMS to measure CO and O2 simultaneously at
the inlet and outlet of the emission control device. You must conduct
an initial performance evaluation using PS3 and PS4A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B. The initial performance evaluation demonstrates that your
CEMS are working properly. You must demonstrate that the reduction in
CO emissions is at least 99.9 percent using the first 4-hour rolling
average after a successful performance evaluation. Your inlet and
outlet measurements must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent
O2 content.
F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to engine
test cells/stands required to comply with the applicable emission
limitation. You are required to comply with the applicable emission
limitation at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction
of your engine test cell/stand. You must operate and maintain your 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 monitoring at all times
that the engine test cell/stand is in operation except during periods
of malfunction of the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs and
quality assurance or control activities, such as calibration drift
checks.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the outlet CO
concentration emission limitation, you must calibrate and operate your
CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must
continuously monitor and record the CO and O2 concentrations
at the outlet of the test cell/stand or emission control device and
calculate the CO emission concentration for each hour. Then, the hourly
CO emission concentrations for each hour of the 4-hour compliance
period are averaged together. The outlet CO emission concentration must
be 5 ppmvd or less, corrected to 15 percent O2 content,
based on the 4-hour rolling average, averaged every hour.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the percent reduction
emission limitation, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS according
to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously monitor and
record the CO and O2 concentration before and after the
emission control device and calculate the percent reduction in CO
emissions hourly. The reduction in CO emissions must be 99.9 percent or
more, based on a rolling 4-hour average, averaged every hour.
For both emission limitations, you must also follow Procedure 1 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix F, to verify that the CEMS is working properly
over time.
G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available to Measure Low
Concentrations of CO?
Continuous emission monitoring systems are available which can
measure CO emissions accurately at the low concentrations found in the
exhaust stream of an engine test cell/stand following an emission
control device. Our performance specification for CO CEMS (PS4A) of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, however, has not been updated recently and
does not reflect the performance capabilities of newer systems. We are
currently undertaking a review of PS4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
for CO CEMS and, in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments
on the performance capabilities of CO CEMS and their ability to measure
accurately the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of
an engine test cell/stand following an emission control device.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
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 evaluation, and a
notification of compliance status for each engine test cell/stand
required to comply with the emission limitations.
You must submit an initial notification for each new or
reconstructed test cell/stand located at a major source of HAP
emissions used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW).
You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are
in compliance with the applicable emission limitation. 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, report, or record. Records must
remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained off site
for the remaining 3 years.
You must submit a compliance report semiannually for each engine
test cell/stand required to comply with the applicable emission
limitation. This report must contain the company name and address, a
statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, a
statement of compliance, or documentation of any deviation from
[[Page 34552]]
the requirements of this proposed rule during the reporting period.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?
Engine test cells/stands can be major sources of HAP emissions and,
as a result, we listed them as a major source category for regulatory
development under section 112 of the CAA. Section 112 of the CAA allows
us to establish subcategories within a source category for the purpose
of regulation. Consequently, we evaluated several criteria associated
with engine test cells/stands which might serve as potential
subcategories.
We identified four subcategories of engine test cells/stands
located at major source facilities: (1) Test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW)
or more, (2) test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), (3) test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines, and (4) test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines.
Internal combustion engines, which can be classified as
reciprocating or rotary, convert thermal energy into mechanical energy.
In an internal combustion engine, a combustible fuel-air mixture is
intermittently ignited and combusted in a confined space. The force
exerted by the expanding gases from this combustion is used to turn a
shaft and provide mechanical power.
An internal combustion engine intakes a mixture of fuel and air,
the mixture is ignited and combusted, and the combustion gases are
exhausted from the engine. This cycle of intake, ignition/combustion,
and exhaust is repeated over and over.
The cyclical nature of the combustion process in an internal
combustion engine is quite different from the combustion processes in
combustion turbine and rocket engines, where the combustion process is
more continuous in nature. Therefore, test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines are considered a separate
subcategory.
Internal combustion engines are used for a wide range of
applications, including motor vehicles (automobiles and motorcycles),
marine, heavy-duty diesel (trucks and buses), locomotive, and a wide
variety of nonroad equipment (agriculture, construction, general
industrial, lawn and garden, utility, material handling, electric power
generation, and along gas and oil pipelines). Internal combustion
engines range in size from a rated power of less than one hp to more
than 15,000 hp.
Engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) generally
include those used in handheld equipment (chainsaws, string trimmers,
and blowers) and lawn and garden equipment. Engines with a rated power
of 25 hp (19 kW) or more, on the other hand, generally include those
used in automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles,
forklifts, generators, compressors, snowmobiles, airport ground-service
equipment, marine engines, heavy-duty construction equipment, electric
power generation, etc. While not perfect, a rated power of 25 hp (19
kW) generally serves to distinguish between smaller internal combustion
engines, which tend to be used in handheld equipment, and larger
internal combustion engines, which tend to be used in non-handheld
equipment. In addition, internal combustion engines with a rated power
of less than 25 hp (19 kW) generally use gasoline as the primary fuel,
whereas larger internal combustion engines can use a wide variety of
fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, liquified petroleum
gas, sewage (digester) gas, or landfill gases.
These factors suggest that internal combustion engines with a rated
power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more should be considered a separate
subcategory from internal combustion engines with a rated power of less
than 25 hp (19 kW). Indeed, the advance notice of rulemaking for
Nonroad Engines and Highway Motorcycles (65 FR 76796, December 7, 2000)
and the Nonroad Handheld Spark-Ignition Engines rulemaking (65 FR
24267, April 25, 2000), used a rated power criteria of 25 hp (19 kW) to
distinguish between larger engines and smaller engines. Thus, a rated
power of 25 hp (19 kW) provides an effective way of dividing internal
combustion engines into two subcategories which recognizes the
significant differences between larger and smaller engines.
Consequently, test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and test
cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated
power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) are considered two separate
subcategories of test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion
engines.
In addition to these two subcategories of engine test cells/stands,
we identified test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine
engines as a third subcategory. Combustion turbine engines are fuel-
fired devices in which a continuous stream of hot combustion gases
passes through and turns a turbine rotor that produces shaft power.
Depending on whether or not the heat can be utilized, the hot exhaust
gases are either emitted directly to the atmosphere or passed through a
heat recovery device which extracts excess heat from the exhaust gases.
Applications for these types of engines include aircraft (including
turbines, turboprops, turbofans, turbojets, and propfans), other
military applications (tanks and ships), auxiliary power units, power
and electric generation, pumping gas or other fluids (e.g., pipelines),
and pneumatic machinery.
In general, combustion turbine engines have much higher power
ratings (e.g., in the range of 500 hp to 240,000 hp or 373 kW to
178,968 kW) and require much larger volumes of air to operate than
internal combustion engines. As a result, the volumes of exhaust from
test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines are
substantially greater than those from test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines. A typical jet engine combustion
turbine, for example, with a rated power of 4,600 hp (3,500 kW)
requires air flows of approximately 125,000 dry standard cubic feet per
minute (dscfm), and a large power generation combustion turbine engine
with a rated power of 200,000 hp (150 megawatts (MW)) can require air
flows of as much as 2 million dscfm, compared to a typical airflow of
500 dscfm for an automobile engine. Also, most combustion turbine
engines burn natural gas or jet fuel, while, as mentioned above, the
larger internal combustion engines can burn a wide variety of fuels,
and the smaller internal combustion engines generally burn gasoline. In
addition, separate test cells/stands are used for testing internal
combustion engines and combustion turbine engines. Consequently, test
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines are considered
a separate subcategory.
Lastly, we identified test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines as a fourth subcategory. Rocket engines are used to launch or
propel rockets and missiles through the air or into space. The working
fluid expelled from a rocket-propelled vehicle is usually a hot,
burning gas resulting from the combustion of chemical propellants. The
hot reaction-product gases are ejected at a high velocity to impart
momentum to the rocket vehicle system. Propellants are of several
different types, classified according to their chemical and physical
properties and the rocket engine type. Liquid
[[Page 34553]]
propellants are either expelled from the tanks by high pressure gases
or are fed by pumps into a thrust chamber, where they react or burn.
Solid propellants look like masses of soft plastic and burn smoothly on
the exposed surfaces when ignited.
Not only are the fuels used in rocket engines quite different from
other engine subcategories, but the volumetric energy release
associated with these fuels are orders of magnitude higher than those
used in either combustion turbine engines or internal combustion
engines. This produces much greater temperatures and pressures in the
combustion chambers and releases a much greater volume of exhaust.
Consequently, test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are
considered a separate subcategory.
B. What About Engine Test Cells/Stands Located at Area Sources?
This proposed rule does not apply to engine test cells/stands
located at area sources of HAP emissions. In developing our Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38705, July 19, 1999), we identified area
sources we believe warrant regulation to protect the environment and
the public health and to satisfy the statutory requirements in section
112 of the CAA pertaining to area sources. Engine test cells/stands
located at area sources were not included on that list and as a result,
this proposed rule does not apply to engine test cells/stands located
at area sources.
C. What Is the Affected Source?
This proposed rule applies to each affected source, which is
defined as any existing, new, or reconstructed engine test cell/stand
used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive)
engines that is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission
Limitations?
To determine the basis and level of the proposed emission
limitations, we relied primarily on two sources: a MACT database and
HAP emissions test reports. The MACT database is a summary of the
information collected through an information collection request (ICR)
for engine test cells/stands located at major and synthetic minor
sources of HAP emissions. The HAP emissions test reports were collected
from engine test facilities.
As established in section 112 of the CAA, MACT 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. For new sources, the MACT floor is defined as the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source.
1. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Internal Combustion Engines of 25
hp (19 kW) or More
To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more, we used
data from the MACT database. The database contains information on
approximately 1,093 test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more from
major source and synthetic minor facilities. Since this number includes
1,055 test cells/stands from major source facilities and we estimate
the total number of test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located
at major source facilities to be about 1,995, we estimate that the MACT
database represents approximately 52 percent of test cells/stands used
for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19
kW) or more located at major source facilities in the United States. We
consider the information contained in the MACT database to be
representative of all test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located
at major source facilities.
Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on
the use of various emission control methods to reduce HAP emissions.
First, we examined the use of control technology. Oxidation emission
control devices, such as thermal and catalytic oxidizers, have been
shown to reduce HAP emissions from test cells/stands used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or
more. These oxidation emission control devices have been installed to
reduce CO emissions, but they also serve to reduce HAP emissions. Only
5 percent of existing test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located
at major source facilities, however, are equipped with oxidation
emission control devices.
Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands.
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State
regulations or permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice
standards'' in the MACT database and a review of the general operation
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards can
be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies, State regulations or permits, or good operating
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other
alternatives, such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in
lower HAP emissions (e.g., switching from diesel fuel to gasoline)
might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine testing, however, is
to simulate the operation of a specific type of engine in a certain
environment. This may be to confirm that the engine was assembled
correctly and will function as intended. In other cases, engine testing
may be conducted to measure or test the durability or performance of an
engine, a new component within an engine, or a new engine design, all
within the context of research and development.
The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability
of a new diesel engine design by burning gasoline in the engine, for
example, nor could one test the performance and durability of a new
gasoline engine design by burning diesel fuel in the engine. Use of a
specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions, therefore, is not a viable
emission control alternative for engine testing; indeed, such an
alternative would defeat the very purpose of engine testing. For this
reason, we concluded that use of a specific fuel cannot be used to
identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW)
or more located at major sources is no reduction in HAP emissions.
To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing
internal
[[Page 34554]]
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located
at major source facilities, we evaluated one regulatory option more
stringent than the MACT floor. This regulatory option was the use of
oxidation emission control devices. We also reconsidered the
alternatives mentioned above, such as reviewing State permits and
regulations, good operating practices and work practice standards, and
using different fuels (also referred to as fuel switching). Again, we
concluded that they are not viable options for MACT.
We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced associated with the use of
oxidation emission control devices. Those analyses are shown in a
memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we
considered the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as
potential water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the
increased energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
negligible, we concluded that costs associated with this regulatory
option were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP
emissions that would result.
We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory options.
Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT floor.
Consequently, we concluded that MACT for existing test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25
hp (19 kW) or more located at major source facilities is no reduction
in HAP emissions.
New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25
hp (19 kW) or more located at major source facilities, we examined the
MACT database and the emission test reports. As mentioned earlier,
about 5 percent of existing test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more
currently use oxidation emission control devices.
We also considered whether the alternatives mentioned above, such
as reviewing State permits and regulations, good operating practices
and work practice standards, and using different fuels, which we
considered to identify a MACT floor for existing test cells/stands,
might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/stands. However,
we concluded that just as none of those alternatives could be used to
identify a MACT floor for existing engine test cells/stands, neither
could they be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/
stands.
Therefore, we concluded that the HAP emission limitation associated
with the use of oxidation emission control devices is the MACT floor
for new test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines
with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more located at major source
facilities.
To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or
more, we considered options more stringent than the MACT floor, such as
good operating practices and work practice standards, fuel switching,
and the review of State permits and regulations to determine if other
methods of control were being used. We are unaware of any option,
including the alternatives just mentioned, which could reduce HAP
emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more beyond that
obtained through the use of an oxidation emission control device.
Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT
floor. As a result, MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more
is the HAP emission level associated with the use of oxidation emission
control devices.
After establishing this basis for MACT, we determined the
achievable emission limitation based on the data available from HAP
emission test reports of the performance of oxidation emission control
devices operating on engine test cells/stands. We examined the emission
control efficiencies achieved by oxidation emission control devices and
concluded that CO emission reductions are a good surrogate for HAP
emissions reductions. In addition, we concluded that oxidation emission
control devices can reduce CO emissions to 5 ppmvd or less, corrected
to 15 percent O2 content, while achieving a CO reduction
efficiency of 99.9 percent or more. Thus, we are proposing the
following MACT emission limitation for test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of 25 hp (19 kW)
or more: an outlet CO emissions concentration of 5 ppmvd or less,
corrected to 15 percent O2 content; or a reduction in CO
emissions of 99.9 percent or more.
2. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Internal Combustion Engines of
Less Than 25 hp (19 kW)
To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), we
used data from the MACT database. The database contains information on
307 test cells/stands used exclusively for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) from major source
and synthetic minor source facilities. Since this number includes 219
test cells/stands from major source facilities, and we estimate the
number of test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major
source facilities to be about 403, we estimate this database represents
about 54 percent of test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW)
located at major source facilities in the United States. We consider
the information contained in the MACT database to be representative of
all test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with
a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source
facilities.
Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on
the use of various control methods to reduce HAP emissions. First, we
examined the use of control technology. No existing test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities are equipped with
emission control technologies.
Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands.
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State
regulations and permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice
standards'' in the MACT database, and a review of the general operation
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards
[[Page 34555]]
can be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies, State regulations and permits, or good operating
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other
alternatives, such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in
lower HAP emissions (e.g., switching from diesel fuel to gasoline)
might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine testing, however, is
to simulate the operation of a specific type of engine in a certain
environment, which could be to confirm that the engine was assembled
correctly and will function as intended. In other cases, engine testing
may be conducted to measure or test the durability or performance of an
engine, a new component within an engine, or a new engine design, all
within the context of research and development.
The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability
of a new diesel engine design by burning gasoline in the engine, for
example, nor could one test the performance and durability of a new
gasoline engine design by burning diesel fuel in the engine. Use of a
specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions, therefore, is not a viable
emission control alternative for engine testing; indeed, such an
alternative would defeat the very purpose of engine testing. For that
reason, we concluded that use of a specific fuel cannot be used to
identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25
hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP
emissions.
To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19
kW) located at major source facilities, we evaluated regulatory options
more stringent than the MACT floor. We considered the use of oxidation
emission control devices as an emission control technology which could
serve as the basis for MACT for existing sources. We also reconsidered
alternatives, such as good operating practices and work practice
standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and
regulations, and again concluded they are not viable options for MACT.
We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for this regulatory option.
Those analyses are shown in a memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled
``Control Costs.'' In addition, we considered the non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements associated
with this regulatory option, such as potential water pollution and
solid waste disposal impacts and the increased energy consumption.
Although we considered the non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements negligible, we concluded that costs
associated with this regulatory option were unreasonable in light of
the small reductions in HAP emissions that would result.
We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory options.
Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT floor.
Consequently, we concluded that MACT for existing test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no reduction
in HAP emissions.
New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less
than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities, we also examined
the MACT database. As mentioned earlier, no existing test cells/stands
used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less
than 25 hp (19 kW) currently use emission control devices.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies, such as oxidation emission control systems, might
identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether any of the
alternatives outlined above (e.g., good operating practices and work
practice standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and
regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT floor for existing
engine test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines
with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW), might identify a MACT
floor for new engine test cells/stands used for testing internal
combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW).
Again, we concluded that none of the alternatives could be used to
identify a MACT floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for
testing internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25
hp (19 kW).
Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a rated power
of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source facilities is no
reduction in HAP emissions.
To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing
internal combustion engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19
kW), we evaluated regulatory options more stringent than the MACT
floor. We considered the use of oxidation emission control devices as
an emission control technology which could serve as the basis for MACT
for new sources. We also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above
(e.g., good operating practices and work practice standards, fuel
switching, and the review of State permits and regulations), which we
considered for identifying a MACT floor, but for the reasons also
discussed above, we concluded they are not viable options for MACT. We
considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced associated with the option of
adding oxidation emission control devices. In addition, we considered
the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as potential
water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the increased
energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements negligible, we
concluded that costs associated with adding an oxidation emission
control device were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in
HAP emissions that would result. We were unable to identify any other
feasible regulatory options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for new
sources is the MACT floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new
test cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with a
rated power of less than 25 hp (19 kW) located at major source
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
3. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Combustion Turbine Engines
To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing combustion
turbine engines, we used data from the MACT database. The database
contains information on 287 test cells/stands used for testing
combustion turbine engines from major source and synthetic minor source
facilities. Since this number includes 252 test cells/stands from major
source facilities, and we estimate the number of test cells/stands used
for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source
facilities to be about 328, we estimate this database represents about
77 percent of
[[Page 34556]]
test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located
at major source facilities in the United States. We consider the
information contained in the MACT database to be representative of all
test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located
at major source facilities.
Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on
the use of various emission control methods to reduce HAP emissions.
First, we examined the use of control technology. No existing test
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located at
major source facilities are equipped with emission control
technologies.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies, such as oxidation emission control systems, might
identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether any of the
alternatives mentioned above (e.g. good operating practices and work
practice standards, fuel switching, and the review of State permits and
regulations) might identify a MACT floor for existing engine test
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines. We were
unable to find any good operating practices or work practice standards
that result in HAP reductions. Similarly, fuel switching is not a
viable alternative since the engine performance and durability being
measured to simulate actual in-use conditions can be affected by the
type of fuel used. Finally, as we mentioned before, our review of State
permits and regulations did not identify any emission control
strategies for that type of source. Thus, we conclude again that none
of those alternatives could be used to help us identify a MACT floor
for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing combustion
turbine engines.
Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for
testing combustion turbine engines located at major source facilities
is no reduction in HAP emissions.
To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing
combustion turbine engines located at major source facilities, we
evaluated regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor. The
only control technology currently proven to reduce HAP emissions from
combustion turbine engines is an oxidation catalyst emission control
device, such as a CO oxidation catalyst. These control devices are used
to reduce CO emissions and are currently installed on several
stationary combustion turbine engines. As a result, we concluded they
could be used on test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine
engines.
We also reconsidered the same alternatives that we looked at for
identifying a MACT floor (e.g., fuel switching, good operating
practices and work practice standards, and the review of State permits
and regulations), and again concluded they are not viable options for
MACT. We considered the costs, the reduction in HAP emissions, and the
incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for the use of an oxidation
catalyst emission control device. Those analyses are shown in a
memorandum in Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we
considered the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as
potential water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the
increased energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
negligible, we concluded that the costs associated with this regulatory
option were unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP
emissions that would result. We were unable to identify any other
feasible regulatory options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing
sources is the MACT floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for
existing test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines
located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands
used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source
facilities, we also examined the MACT database. As mentioned earlier,
no existing test cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine
engines currently use emission control devices.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies might identify a MACT floor, we also considered
whether any of the alternatives outlined above (e.g., fuel switching,
good operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of
State permits and regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT
floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing combustion
turbine engines, might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines. We were unable to
find any good operating practices or work practice standards that
result in HAP reductions. Similarly, fuel switching is not a viable
alternative since the engine performance and durability being measured
to simulate actual in-use conditions can be affected by the type of
fuel used. Finally, as we mentioned before, our review of State permits
and regulations did not identify any emission control strategies for
that type of source. Thus, we have concluded that none of those
alternatives could be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test
cells/stands used for testing combustion turbine engines.
Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major
source facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
To determine MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing
combustion turbine engines, we evaluated regulatory options more
stringent than the MACT floor. We again considered the use of an
oxidation catalyst emission control device as an emission control
technology which could serve as the basis for MACT for new sources. We
also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above (e.g., fuel
switching, good operating practices and work practice standards, and
the review of State permits and regulations), which we considered for
identifying a MACT floor, but for the same reasons, we concluded they
are not viable options for MACT. We considered the costs, the reduction
in HAP emissions, and the incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced for
this regulatory option. Those analyses are shown in a memorandum in
Docket A-98-29, titled ``Control Costs.'' In addition, we considered
the non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements associated with this regulatory option, such as potential
water pollution and solid waste disposal impacts and the increased
energy consumption. Although we considered the non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements negligible, we
concluded that costs associated with this regulatory option were
unreasonable in light of the small reductions in HAP emissions that
would result. We were unable to identify any other feasible regulatory
options. Thus, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT
floor. Consequently, we concluded that MACT for new test cells/stands
used for testing combustion turbine engines located at major source
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
[[Page 34557]]
4. Test Cells/Stands Used for Testing Rocket Engines
To determine MACT for test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines, we used data from the MACT database. The database contains
information on 99 test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines
from major source and synthetic minor source facilities. Since this
number includes 75 test cells/stands from major source facilities and
we estimate the number of test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines located at major source facilities to be about 100, we estimate
this database represents about 75 percent of test cells/stands used for
testing rocket engines located at major source facilities in the United
States. We consider the information contained in the MACT database to
be representative of all test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines located at major source facilities.
Existing Sources. We examined the MACT database for information on
the use of various emission control systems. First, we examined the use
of control technology. No existing test cells/stands used for testing
rocket engines located at major source facilities are equipped with
emission control technologies.
Another approach we considered to identify a MACT floor was to
review State regulations and permits. We could find no State
regulations which limit HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands.
Similarly, we found no State permits which limit HAP emissions from
engine test cells/stands. Therefore, we concluded that State
regulations and permits could not be used to identify a MACT floor.
We also considered whether the use of good operating practices and
work practice standards might identify a MACT floor. There are no
references, however, to ``good operating practices'' or ``work practice
standards'' in the MACT database, and a review of the general operation
of engine test cells/stands failed to identify any good operating
practices which might reduce HAP emissions. As a result, we concluded
that neither good operating practices nor work practice standards can
be used to identify a MACT floor for engine test cells/stands.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies, State regulations and permits, and good operating
practices might identify a MACT floor, we also considered whether other
alternatives such as the use of a specific fuel which might result in
lower HAP emissions might identify a MACT floor. The purpose of engine
testing, however, is to simulate the operation of a specific type of
engine in a certain environment, which could be to confirm that the
engine was assembled correctly and will function as intended. In other
cases, engine testing may be conducted to measure or test the
durability or performance of an engine, a new component within an
engine, or a new engine design, all within the context of research and
development.
The fuel burned in the engine during the test is an integral part
of the test itself. One could not test the performance and durability
of a rocket engine design by burning a fuel other than the one it is
designed to use. Use of a specific fuel to reduce HAP emissions,
therefore, is not a viable emission control alternative for rocket
engine testing; indeed, such an alternative would defeat the very
purpose of the testing. For that reason, we concluded that use of a
specific fuel cannot be used to identify a MACT floor for engine cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines.
Consequently, the average of the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is no reduction in HAP emissions. As a result, we
concluded that the MACT floor for existing test cells/stands used for
testing rocket engines located at major source facilities is no
reduction in HAP emissions.
To determine MACT for existing test cells/stands used for testing
rocket engines located at major source facilities, we attempted to
identify regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor. We are
unaware of any emission control technology which could be used to
reduce HAP emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing rocket
engines.
We also reconsidered the alternatives mentioned above, which we
considered for identifying a MACT floor (e.g., fuel switching, good
operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of
State permits and regulations), but for the reasons also discussed
above, we concluded they are not viable options for MACT. We were
unable to identify any feasible regulatory options.
A number of characteristics of the exhaust from rocket engine
testing (extremely high temperatures, extremely high volumetric flow
rates, and very short test durations) and the infrequent timing of
testing raise a number of unique problems that must be resolved for an
emission control device to be considered a viable option for reducing
HAP emissions from test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines.
Consequently, we could identify no candidate MACT technologies for
analysis. Without a viable emission control device, we are unable to
estimate the potential costs associated with its use. Similarly, we are
unable to estimate the potential reduction in HAP emissions which might
result from the use of such a device.
Thus, we concluded that MACT for existing sources is the MACT
floor. Consequently, MACT for existing test cells/stands used for
testing rocket engines is no reduction in HAP emissions.
New Sources. To identify the MACT floor for new test cells/stands
used for testing rocket engines located at major source facilities, we
also examined the MACT database. As mentioned earlier, no existing test
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines currently use emission
control devices.
In addition to considering whether the use of add-on emission
control technologies might identify a MACT floor, we also considered
whether any of the alternatives outlined above (e.g., fuel switching,
good operating practices and work practice standards, and the review of
State permits and regulations), which we considered to identify a MACT
floor for existing engine test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines, might identify a MACT floor for new engine test cells/stands
used for testing rocket engines. Again, we concluded that none of these
alternatives could be used to identify a MACT floor for new engine test
cells/stands used for testing rocket engines.
Therefore, we concluded that the MACT floor for new test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines located at major source
facilities is no reduction in HAP emissions.
We also considered regulatory options more stringent than the MACT
floor. As explained in the previous paragraphs, we were unable to
identify any emission control technology which could be used to reduce
HAP emissions from a test cell/stand used for testing rocket engines.
Thus, we concluded that MACT for new sources is the MACT floor, and we
concluded that MACT for new test cells/stands used for testing rocket
engines located at major source facilities is no reduction in HAP
emissions.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standard?
The HAP emissions test reports which serve as the basis for the
MACT emission limitations did not measure specific HAP, such as
toluene, benzene, mixed xylenes, or 1,3-butadiene, etc. They measured
CO emissions and, in most cases, they also measured total hydrocarbon
(THC) emissions. In one case, emissions of non-methane organics (NMO)
were also measured.
[[Page 34558]]
The HAP emitted from engine test cells/stands are hydrocarbons, as
well as organics. As a result, if HAP emissions decrease, emissions of
THC and NMO will decrease as well. Consequently, the measurements of
THC or NMO emissions serve as surrogate measurements of HAP emissions,
and we assessed the HAP emissions reduction performance of the
oxidation emission control devices in terms of reductions in THC or NMO
emissions.
In addition, the data from these HAP emissions test reports also
demonstrate a direct relationship between emissions of CO and THC or
NMO. If emissions of THC or NMO are reduced, CO emissions are also
reduced. As a result, we concluded that CO emissions could also serve
as a surrogate for HAP emissions, and we also assessed the HAP
emissions reduction performance of the oxidation emission control
devices in terms of reductions in CO emissions.
We considered three alternatives in terms of the format for the
MACT emission limitations. We could have proposed the emission
limitation in terms of THC, NMO, or CO emissions; however, there was
only one emission test report available which measured NMO emissions,
so we rejected the alternative of an emission limitation in terms of
NMO emissions in favor of an emission limitation in terms of either THC
or CO emissions.
As outlined earlier, we are proposing a MACT emission limitation in
terms of CO emissions. We could have proposed an emission limitation in
terms of THC emissions, but chose CO emissions primarily because the
costs for CO CEMS are somewhat less than those for THC CEMS. However,
since these costs are within the same range, some may prefer a MACT
emission limitation in terms of THC, or they may prefer a choice of
either the THC or CO emission limitation.
As a result, we specifically request public comment in this area.
If we were to adopt a THC MACT emission limitation in place of the
proposed CO emission limitation, or if we were to adopt a THC emission
limitation in addition to the proposed CO emission limitation and allow
affected sources to comply with either the THC or the CO emission
limitation, based on the HAP emissions test reports mentioned above, we
anticipate that the corresponding THC MACT emission limitation would
be: An outlet THC concentration of 3 ppmvd or less, expressed as
methane and corrected to 15 percent O2; or a reduction in
THC emissions of 99.7 percent.
We recognize that this proposal will be of limited significance
because it would require emission reductions from new major sources for
only one of the four subcategories identified and that, standing alone,
these new sources will likely have low HAP emissions. We nonetheless
believe promulgation of standards for this source category is compelled
by the Act. Section 112(a) defines ``major source'' as ``any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control, that emits or has the potential to emit
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any
hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination
of hazardous air pollutants.'' Thus, sources are considered part of a
major source when they are collocated with other sources at facilities
that in combination have the potential to emit over the major source
thresholds. Because the statute is clear that such collocated sources
must be considered major, we believe it is also clear in the statute
that we must list categories that include such sources and promulgate
standards for those categories pursuant to section 112(d).
In the interest of providing as much compliance flexibility as
possible to these sources, we request comments on the possibility of
averaging emissions across processes throughout the entire major source
and allowing reductions from emission points covered by other MACT
standards, within the facility, to be counted towards the emission
limitations proposed in this action. Comments should include ideas on
how such averaging scheme would work and be implemented. This type of
provision, if implemented, could allow flexibility for the affected
facility to determine an effective emission control strategy while, at
the same time, achieving the emission reductions intended by this
proposal.
F. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
We are proposing the use of CO and O2 CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limitation. These
CEMS are available at reasonable costs and are in widespread use in
numerous applications and numerous industries.
For sources complying with either the outlet CO concentration
emission limitation or the CO percent reduction emission limitation, an
initial performance evaluation of the CEMS is required. This
performance evaluation will certify the performance of the CO and
O2 CEMS. The first 4-hour period following this performance
evaluation of the CEMS will be used to determine initial compliance
with either emission limitation.
G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
As mentioned above, we are proposing the use of CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission limitation. If you must comply
with the outlet CO concentration emission limitation or the CO percent
reduction emission limitation, continuous compliance with the
limitation is required at all times. We are proposing the use of
Procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, to ensure that the
performance of the CEMS does not deteriorate over time.
We consider the use of CEMS the best means of ensuring continuous
compliance with the emission limitation, and alternatives to CEMS are
considered only if we consider the use of a CEMS technically or
economically infeasible. For sources complying with either of the
emission limitations, we believe requiring a CEMS is feasible because
the costs of CO and O2 CEMS are reasonable.
H. How Did We Select the Monitoring and Testing Methods?
Continuous emission monitoring systems are available which can
measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust
from an oxidation emission control device operating on an engine test
cell/stand. Performance Specification 4A for CO CEMS has not been
updated recently and does not reflect the performance capabilities of
these CEMS.
As a result, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of
state-of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to accurately measure the
low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of an engine test
cell/stand. We also solicit comments with specific recommendations on
the changes we should make to our performance specification for CO CEMS
(PS4A) to ensure the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to
determine compliance of engine test cells/stands with the proposed
emission limitation. In addition, we solicit comments on the
availability of instruments that can be used to measure the low CO
concentrations emitted by some engine test cells/stands, and that are
capable of meeting the recommended changes to our performance
specifications for CO CEMS.
Today's proposal specifies the use of Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance
of O2 CEMS and the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
[[Page 34559]]
appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the
CO CEMS. Method 10 is capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as
those experienced in the exhaust of an oxidation emission control
device operating on an engine test cell/stand. However, the performance
criteria in addenda A of Method 10 have not been revised recently and
are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at these
CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum
detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target
concentrations as low as 1 ppmvd CO in some cases.
As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on
the changes we should make to Method 10 and the performance criteria in
addenda A, as they are related to the low CO levels emitted by some
engine test cells/stands. If you recommend changes to Method 10 or the
performance criteria, we also solicit comments on the availability of
instruments that can be used to measure the low CO concentrations
emitted by some engine test cells/stands, and that are capable of
meeting those changes, while also meeting the remaining addenda A
performance criteria.
I. 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.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
This proposed rule will reduce HAP emissions in the 5th year
following promulgation by an estimated 135 tons (148.5 megagrams).
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total annualized cost of this proposed rule in the 5th year
following promulgation is estimated to be about $7.4 million. This cost
includes recordkeeping and reporting costs, CEMS costs, emission
control device costs, and operating, maintenance, and annualized
capital investment costs for emission control devices and CEMS.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
This proposed rule is not expected to affect any of the existing
engine test cells/stands located at major source facilities which test
internal combustion engines, combustion turbine engines, or rocket
engines.
We estimate that 148 new engine test cells/stands will be
constructed in the next 5 years at engine research and development or
production facilities which are major sources of HAP emissions. These
new engine test cells/stands will be required to comply with the
proposed rule.
We anticipate that 84 of these new engine test cells/stands will be
built at auto, tractor, and diesel engine manufacturing facilities, and
that 64 of these new engine test cells/stands will be built at military
facilities.
The auto, tractor, and diesel engine manufacturing firms that are
expected to construct new engine test cells/stands are large multi-
national firms; thus, the cost of compliance is insignificant in
comparison to firm revenues. The total sales for the potentially
affected firms range from $6.5 billion to more than $184 billion. Thus,
the impact on affected firms ranges from 0.0007 to 0.015 percent of
corporate revenues. Likewise, the cost of compliance for military
facilities that may be affected is insignificant when compared to
selected facilities expenditures. The compliance costs account for 0.07
percent of facility expenditures on average, and 0.001 percent of the
2001 budget for U.S. defense. Therefore, the economic impacts
associated with this proposed rule are considered negligible.
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 this proposed rule. Energy impacts associated
with this proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption
that would be required 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
We are requesting comments on this proposed rule. We request
comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, such as the proposed
emission limitation, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well
as aspects you may feel have not been addressed.
We also request comments on the performance capabilities of state-
of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to measure the low concentrations
of CO in the exhaust of engine test cells/stands.
We also request comments with recommendations on changes commenters
believe we should make to our performance specifications for CO CEMS
(PS4A) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10 that
will allow the measurement of low CO concentrations emitted by some
engine test cells/stands. In addition, we request comments from these
commenters on the availability of instruments that can be used to
measure the low CO concentrations emitted by some engine test cells/
stands, and that are capable of meeting the changes they recommend to
our performance specification for CO CEMS (PS4A) of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and addendum A to
Method 10.
We also solicit comments on whether we should adopt a MACT emission
limitation in terms of THC emissions rather than CO emissions. In
addition, we solicit comments on whether we should adopt both THC and
CO MACT emission limitations and allow affected sources to comply with
either the THC or the CO MACT emission limitation.
We request any HAP emissions test data available from engine test
cells/stands equipped with an oxidation emission control device or
other equivalent emission control system; however, if you submit HAP
emissions test data, please submit the full and complete emission test
report with these data. Include the sections describing the specific
type of engine and its operation during the test, discussion of the
test methods employed and the Quality Assurance/Quality Control
procedures followed, the raw data sheets, and all related calculations.
The emissions data submitted without this information is not useful.
Finally, in the interest of providing as much compliance
flexibility as possible to major sources, we request comments on the
possibility of averaging emissions across processes throughout the
entire major source and allowing reductions from emission points
covered by other MACT standards, within the facility, to be counted
towards the emission limitations proposed in this action. Comments
should include ideas on how such averaging scheme would work and be
implemented. This type of provision, if promulgated, could allow
flexibility for the affected facility to determine an effective
emission control strategy while, at the same time, achieving the
emission reductions intended by this proposal.
[[Page 34560]]
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
does not have an annual effect on the economy of over $100 million. As
such, this action was not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
We are required by section 112 of the CAA to establish the
standards in this proposed rule. This proposed rule primarily affects
private industry and does not impose significant economic costs on
State or local governments. This proposed rule does not include an
express provision preempting State or local regulations. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. We
know of one company that reported operating engine test cells/stands
that are owned by an Indian tribal government. However, these test
cells/stands are used for testing rocket engines. Although test cells/
stands used for testing rocket engines are covered by the proposed
rule, test cells/stands used for testing rocket engines are not
required to meet any emission limitation, reporting, or recordkeeping
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may
[[Page 34561]]
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop a small government agency plan under
section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, today's proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In addition, we have determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has either fewer than 500 employees if the business is
involved in testing marine engines, or fewer than 1,000 employees if
the business is involved in the testing of other types of engines; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
The requirements of this proposed rule apply only to major sources,
which are defined as facilities that emit more than 10 tons per year of
any one HAP, or more than 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP.
According to our analyses, none of the identified major sources met the
definition of a small business stated above. Therefore, this proposed
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Pursuant to
the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we hereby certify that the proposed
NESHAP, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
In 1998, we sent information collection requests (ICR) to over 100
companies representing over 300 individual facilities. The ICR
requested information on HAP emissions from engine test cells/stands
and on the number of employees of the parent company. Using that
information, we determined that there are no major sources that are
also small businesses.
In addition to the analyses of ICR data, we held several meetings
with companies that operate engine testing facilities to inform them of
the progress and development of the proposed rule. We also held a
meeting on April 11, 2001 with the National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA), which represents the small businesses that had
previously expressed concerns about the possible impacts of this
proposed rule. That meeting helped clarify to NMMA and its member
companies what type of facilities might be subject to this proposed
rule. The meeting was followed up with phone conversations with NMMA
and some of its member companies in order to obtain more information
and to determine if any of the small entities emitted enough HAP to be
considered a major source. Again, we concluded after the outreach
activities that none of the small marine engine manufacturing
businesses represented by NMMA would be subject to this proposed rule
since they do not emit enough HAP to be considered major sources.
Although this proposed rule is not expected to regulate small
entities, we have tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on
all sources. In this proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level
of control and the minimum level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting to affected sources allowed by the CAA. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared (ICR
No. 1967.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule requires maintenance inspections of the control
devices but does not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements
involve only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 5 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to be 9,600 labor hours per year at a total
annual cost of $440,800. This estimate includes a one-time (initial)
CEMS performance evaluation, annualized capital monitoring equipment
costs, semiannual compliance reports, maintenance inspections,
notifications, and recordkeeping. Total annual costs associated with
the new source control and monitoring requirements over the period of
the ICR are estimated at $7.4 million.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of
[[Page 34562]]
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between
30 and 60 days after May 14, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 13, 2002. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose
to use EPA Methods 3A, 3B, 10, 10B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and
PS3 and PS4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. Consistent with the NTTAA,
we searched for voluntary consensus standards which could be used in
lieu of these methods/performance specifications. No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 10B and
PS3 and PS4A.
One voluntary consensus standard was identified as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10. The voluntary consensus standard
ASTM D6522-00, ``Standard Test Method for the Determination of Nitrogen
Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from
Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers
and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10 for identifying oxygen and carbon
monoxide concentrations, respectively, for this proposed rule when the
fuel used during testing is natural gas.
Our search for emissions measurement procedures identified seven
other voluntary consensus standards. Six of these seven standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emission standards in the proposed rule, however, were impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods/performance specifications for the
purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, for the reason discussed
below, we do not intend to adopt these voluntary consensus standards.
The standard, ASTM D3162 (1994) ``Standard Test Method for Carbon
Monoxide in the Atmosphere (Continuous Measurement by Nondispersive
Infrared (NDIR) Spectrometry),'' is impractical as an alternative to
EPA Method 10 in this proposed rulemaking because this ASTM standard,
which is stated to be applicable in the range of 0.5-100 ppm CO, does
not cover the range of EPA Method 10 (20-1000 ppm CO) at the upper end
(but states that it has a lower limit of sensitivity). Also, ASTM D3162
does not provide a procedure to remove carbon dioxide interference.
Therefore, this ASTM standard is not appropriate for combustion
sources. In terms of NDIR instrument performance specifications, ASTM
D3162 has much higher maximum allowable rise and fall times (5 minutes)
than EPA Method 10 (which has 30 seconds).
The following five voluntary consensus standards are impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule
because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed
to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3154-91
(1995), ``Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube
Method),'' for EPA Method 3B; ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions, for Automated Determination of
Gas Concentration,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; ISO 10396:1993,
``Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination
of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; CAN/CSA Z223.2-
M86(1986), ``Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon
Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in
Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Methods 3A and 10; and
CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978, ``Method for the Measurement of Carbon Monoxide:
3--Method of Analysis by Non-Dispersive Infrared Spectrometry,'' for
EPA Method 10.
The seventh voluntary consensus standard identified in this search
for EPA Methods 3A and 10, ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary Source
Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' was not available at the time the review
was conducted for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because the
method was under development by a voluntary consensus body. While we
are not proposing to include this voluntary consensus standard in
today's proposal, we will consider it when this voluntary consensus
standard is final.
We invite comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
included in the proposed rule and specifically solicit comment on
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should
explain, however, why this proposed rule should adopt these voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's methods or
performance specifications. Emission test methods and performance
specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a
basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the
procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method other than
Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
Sections 63.9310 and 63.9325 to subpart PPPPP lists the testing
methods/performance specifications included in the proposed rule. Under
Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to
EPA for permission
[[Page 34563]]
to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing
methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart PPPPP to read as follows:
Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/Stands
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.9280 What is the purpose of this subpart PPPPP?
63.9285 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9290 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9295 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.9300 What emission limitation must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.9305 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.9310 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance
demonstrations?
63.9320 What procedures must I use?
63.9325 What are my monitor installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.9330 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
emission limitation?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.9335 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.9340 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
applicable emission limitation?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.9345 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9350 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9355 What records must I keep?
63.9360 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.9365 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9370 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9375 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Initial
Compliance Demonstrations
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations
Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 6 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63
Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/Stands
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.9280 What is the purpose of this subpart PPPPP?
Subpart PPPPP establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for engine test cells/stands located at major
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. This subpart also
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission limitations contained in this NESHAP.
Sec. 63.9285 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an engine
test cell/stand that is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
(a) An engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing
uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or
has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07
megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.
Sec. 63.9290 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to each affected source.
(a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or
reconstructed engine test cell/stand that is located at a major source
of HAP emissions.
(1) Existing engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand is
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the engine
test cell/stand on or before May 14, 2002. A change in ownership of an
existing engine test cell/stand does not make that engine test cell/
stand a new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand.
(2) New engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand is new if
you commenced construction of the engine test cell/stand after May 14,
2002.
(3) Reconstructed engine test cell/stand. An engine test cell/stand
is reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in
Sec. 63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after May 14, 2002.
(b) Existing engine test cells/stands do not have to meet the
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part.
(c) A new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand located at a
major source which is used exclusively for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of less than 25 horsepower (hp) (19
kilowatts (kW)) does not have to meet the requirements of this subpart
and of subpart A of this part except for the initial notification
requirements of Sec. 63.9345(b).
(d) A new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand located at a
major source which is used exclusively for testing combustion turbine
engines or which is used exclusively for testing rocket engines does
not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of
this part.
Sec. 63.9295 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Affected sources.
(1) If you start up your new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register], you must comply with the emission limitation in this subpart
no later than [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register].
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register], you must comply with the emission limitation in this subpart
upon startup.
(b) Area sources that become major sources. If your new or
reconstructed engine test cell/stand is located at an area source that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, your new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand
must be in compliance with this
[[Page 34564]]
subpart when the area source becomes a major source.
(c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9345
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.9345 and in subpart A of this
part.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.9300 What emission limitation must I meet?
For each new or reconstructed test cell/stand which is used in
whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with a rated
power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more and which is located at a major source,
you must comply with one of the two emission limitations in Table 1 of
this subpart.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9305 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitation which
applies to you at all times, including startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of your engine test cell/stand.
(b) If you must comply with an emission limitation, you must
operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control
equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9310 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance
demonstrations?
You must conduct the initial compliance demonstrations that apply
to you in Table 2 of this subpart within 180 calendar days after the
compliance date that is specified for your engine test cell/stand in
Sec. 63.9295 and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.9320 What procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each initial compliance demonstration that
applies to you in Table 2 of this subpart.
(b) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
emissions monitor system (CEMS) according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification
(PS) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS3 or PS4A).
(c) If you chose to comply with the carbon monoxide (CO)
concentration emission limitation, the initial demonstration of
compliance consists of the first 4-hour rolling average CO
concentration recorded after completion of the CEMS performance
evaluation. You must correct the CO concentration at the outlet of the
engine test cell/stand or the emission control device to a dry basis
and to 15 percent oxygen (O2) content according to Equation
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY02.000
Where:
Cc = concentration of CO, corrected to 15 percent oxygen,
parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd)
Cunc = total uncorrected concentration of CO, ppmvd
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in gas stream, dry
basis, percent by volume.
(d) If you chose to comply with the CO percent reduction emission
limitation, the initial demonstration of compliance consists of the
first 4-hour rolling average percent reduction in CO recorded after
completion of the performance evaluation of the CEMS. You must complete
the actions described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (2) of this section.
(1) Correct the CO concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the
emission control device to a dry basis and to 15 percent O2
content using Equation 1 of this section.
(2) Calculate the percent reduction in CO using this Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY02.001
Where:
R = percent reduction in CO
Ci = corrected CO concentration at inlet of the emission
control device
Co = corrected CO concentration at the outlet of the
emission control device.
Sec. 63.9325 What are my monitor installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) To comply with the CO concentration emission limitation, you
must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and
O2 at the outlet of the exhaust system of the engine test
cell/stand or at the outlet of the emission control device.
(b) To comply with the CO percent reduction emission limitation,
you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and
O2 at both the inlet and the outlet of the emission control
device.
(c) To comply with either emission limitation, the CEMS must be
installed and operated according to the requirements described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
the applicable PS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS3 or PS4A).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to PS3 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix B, using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, for the O2 CEMS; and according to PS4A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B, using Method 10 or 10B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, for the CO CEMS. If the fuel used in the engines being tested is
natural gas, you may use ASTM D 6522-00, ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen
Concentration in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers.''
(3) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period. You must have at least
two data points, each representing a different 15-minute period within
the same hour, to have a valid hour of data.
(4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2)
and recorded as CO concentration in ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent
O2 content.
(d) If you have CEMS that are subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section, you must properly maintain and operate the monitors
continuously according to the requirements described in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Proper maintenance. You must maintain the monitoring equipment
at all times that the engine test cell/stand is operating, including
but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of
the monitoring equipment.
(2) Continued operation. You must operate your CEMS according to
paragraphs (d)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all
times that the engine test cell/stand is operating, except for, as
applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required
quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable,
calibration drift checks and required zero and high-level adjustments).
Quality assurance or control activities must be performed according to
Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(ii) Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, out-of-control periods, and required quality
[[Page 34565]]
assurance or control activities must not be used for purposes of
calculating data averages. You must use all of the data collected from
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.
Sec. 63.9330 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
applicable emission limitation?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 3 of this subpart.
(b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing results of the initial compliance demonstration according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.9345(f).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9335 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration drift checks and required zero and high-level
adjustments of the monitoring system), you must conduct all monitoring
in continuous operation at all times the engine test cell/stand is
operating.
(b) Do not use data recorded during monitor malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control
activities for meeting the requirements of this subpart, including data
averages and calculations. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing the performance of the emission control
device or in assessing emissions from the new or reconstructed engine
test cell/stand.
Sec. 63.9340 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
applicable emission limitation?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitation in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you according to
methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the
emission limitation which applies to you. You must also report each
instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 6 of this
subpart which apply to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations in this subpart and must be reported according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.9350.
(c) Deviations from the applicable emission limitation that occur
during a period of malfunction of the control equipment as defined by
Sec. 63.9375 are not violations.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9345 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.8(e),
(f)(4) and (6) and 63.9(b), (g)(1) and (2), and (h) that apply to you
by the dates specified.
(b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed test cell/stand
used for testing internal combustion engines, you are required to
submit an Initial Notification as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or
reconstructed engine test cell/stand before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [DATE THE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b), if you start up your new or
reconstructed engine test cell/stand on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject
to this subpart.
(3) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are
otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in
accordance with Sec. 63.9290(c), your notification should include the
information in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v) and a statement that your
new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand has no additional
requirements, explaining the basis of the exclusion (for example, that
the test cell/stand is used exclusively for testing internal combustion
engines with a rated power of less than 25 hp (19kW)).
(c) If you are required to comply with an emission limitation in
Table 1 of this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance
Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). For each initial compliance
demonstration with an emission limitation, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the
30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance
demonstration.
(d) You must submit a notification of performance evaluation of
your CEMS at least 60 calendar days before the performance evaluation
is scheduled to begin as required in Sec. 63.8(e)(2).
Sec. 63.9350 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed engine test cell/
stand which must meet an emission limitation, you must submit a
semiannual compliance report according to Table 5 of this subpart by
the applicable dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section, unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule.
(1) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period
beginning on the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9295 and ending
on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.9295.
(2) The first semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is
specified in Sec. 63.9295.
(3) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must be postmarked
or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand that is
subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part
71, and if the permitting authority has established the date for
submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent
compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has
established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(b) If there is no deviation from the applicable emission
limitation and the CEMS was not out-of-control, according to
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
[[Page 34566]]
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) A statement that no deviation from the applicable emission
limitation occurred during the reporting period and that no CEMS was
out-of-control, according to Sec. 63.8(c)(7).
(c) For each deviation from an emission limitation, the semiannual
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
(2) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine
test cell/stand during the reporting period.
(3) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period (recorded in 4-hour periods), and the total duration
as a percent of the total operating time during that reporting period.
(4) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(d) For each CEMS deviation, the semiannual compliance report must
include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(1) The date and time that each CEMS was inoperative except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(2) The date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(3) A summary of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the
reporting period (reported in 4-hour periods), and the total duration
of CEMS downtime as a percent of the total engine test cell/stand
operating time during that reporting period.
(4) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the
reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment
malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes and other unknown
causes.
(5) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s) of
each monitor.
(6) The date of the latest CEMS certification or audit.
(7) A description of any changes in CEMS or controls since the last
reporting period.
Sec. 63.9355 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) Records of performance evaluations as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii).
(4) Records of all maintenance on the air pollution control
equipment, if applicable, as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(iii).
(b) For each CEMS, you must keep the records as described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superceded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Request for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for CEMS
as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
(c) You must keep the records required in Table 4 of this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
Sec. 63.9360 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according
to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must retain your records of the most recent 2 years on
site, or your records must be accessible on site. Your records of the
remaining 3 years may be retained off site.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9365 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 6 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.
Sec. 63.9370 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your
State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as follows.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in
Sec. 63.9300 under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.9375 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA);
in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part; and in this
section:
CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by
Public Law 101-549, 104 Statute 2399).
Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major
source as defined in this subpart.
Combustion turbine engine means a device in which air is compressed
in a compressor, enters a combustion chamber, and is compressed further
by the combustion of fuel injected into the combustion chamber. The hot
compressed combustion gases then expand over a series of curved vanes
or blades arranged on a central spindle which rotates.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
[[Page 34567]]
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Engine means any internal combustion engine, any combustion turbine
engine, or any rocket engine.
Engine test cell/stand means any apparatus used for testing
uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) engines.
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) means any air pollutant listed in or
pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
Internal combustion engine means a device in which air enters a
combustion chamber, is mixed with fuel, compressed in the chamber, and
combusted. Fuel may enter the combustion chamber with the air or be
injected into the combustion chamber. Expansion of the hot combustion
gases in the chamber rotates a shaft, either through a reciprocating or
rotary action. For purposes of this subpart, this definition does not
include combustion turbine engines.
Major source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning
as in Sec. 63.2.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Rated power means the maximum power output of an engine in use.
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is federally enforceable.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined by 40
CFR 70.2.
Rocket engine means a device consisting of a combustion chamber in
which materials referred to as propellants, which provide both the fuel
and the oxygen for combustion, are burned. Combustion gases escape
through a nozzle, providing thrust.
Tables to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
[As stated in Sec. 63.9300, you must comply with the following emission
limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each new or reconstructed engine
test cell/stand located at a major You must meet one of the
source which is used in whole or in following emission limitations:
part for testing * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Internal combustion engines with a a. Limit the concentration of
rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more. CO to 5 ppmvd or less
(corrected to 15 percent O2
content);
OR
b. Achieve a reduction in CO of
99.9 percent or more between
the inlet and outlet
concentrations of CO
(corrected to 15 percent O2
content) of the emission
control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Requirements for Initial Compliance Demonstrations
[As stated in Sec. 63.9310, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each engine test cell/stand According to the following
complying with * * * You must * * * Using * * * requirements***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CO concentration emissions Demonstrate CO A CEMS for CO and O2 This demonstration is
limitation. emissions are 5 ppmvd at the outlet of the conducted immediately
or less. engine test cell/ following a successful
stand or emission performance evaluation of
control device. the CEMS as required in
Sec. 63.9325(c). The
demonstration consists of
the first 4-hour rolling
average of measurements.
The CO concentration must
be corrected to 15 percent
O2content, dry basis using
Equation 1 of Sec.
63.9320.
2. The CO percent reduction Demonstrate a A CEMS for CO and O2 This demonstration is
emission limitation. reduction in CO of at both the inlet and conducted immediately
99.9 percent or more. outlet of the following a successful
emission control performance evaluation of
device. the CEMS as required in
Sec. 63.9325(c). The
demonstration consists of
the first 4-hour rolling
average of measurements.
The inlet and outlet CO
concentrations must be
corrected to 15 percent O2
content using Equation 1
of Sec. 63.9320. The
reduction in CO is
calculated using Equation
2 of Sec. 63.9320.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
[As stated in Sec. 63.9330, you must comply with the following emission
limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial compliance
For the * * * if * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO concentration emission The first 4-hour rolling average CO
limitation. concentration is 5 ppmvd or less,
corrected to 15 percent O2 content.
2. CO percent reduction The first 4-hour rolling average
emission limitation. reduction in CO is 99.9 percent or more,
dry basis, corrected to 15 percent O2
content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34568]]
Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limitations
[As stated in Sec. 63.9340, you must comply with the following emission
limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For the * *y* compliance by * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO concentration emission a. Collecting the CEMS data according to
limitation. Sec. 63.9325(a), reducing the
measurements to 1-hour averages,
correcting them to 15 percent O2
content, dry basis, according to Sec.
63.9320;
and
b. Demonstrating CO emissions are 5 ppmvd
or less over each 4-hour rolling
averaging period.
2. CO percent reduction a. Collecting the CEMS data according to
emission limitation. Sec. 63.9325(b), reducing the
measurements to 1-hour averages,
correcting them to 15 percent O2
content, dry basis, calculating the CO
percent reduction according to Sec.
63.9320;
and
b. Demonstrating a reduction in CO of
99.9 percent or more over each 4-hour
rolling averaging period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
[As stated in Sec. 63.9350, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate an engine test cell/
stand which must comply with emission The report must contain * * * You must submit the
limitations, you must submit a * * * report * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report...................... a. If there are no deviations from the i. Semi-annually,
emission limitations that apply to you, a according to the
statement that there were no deviations requirements in Sec.
from the emission limitations during the 63.9350.
reporting period;
or
b. If there were no periods during which i. Semi-annually,
the CEMS was out-of-control as specified according to the
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that requirements in Sec.
there were no periods during which the 63.9350.
the CEMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period;
or
c. If you have a deviation from any i. Semi-annually,
emission limitation during the reporting according to the
period, the report must contain the requirements in Sec.
information in Sec. 63.9350(c); 63.9350.
or
d. If there were periods during which the i. Semi-annually,
CEMS was out-of-control, as specified in according to the
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain requirements in Sec.
the information in Sec. 63.9350(d). 63.9350.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63
[As stated in Sec. 63.9365, you must comply with the following emission limitations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart PPPPP of
Citation Subject Brief description part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)................. Applicability...... General applicability of Yes. Additional terms
the General Provisions. defined in Sec. 63.9375.
Sec. 63.1(a)(2)-(4)............. Applicability...... Applicability of source Yes.
categories.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(7)............. Applicability...... Contact for source category Yes.
information; extension of
compliance through early
reduction.
Sec. 63.1(a)(8)................. Applicability...... Establishment of State No.
rules or programs.
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)........... Applicability...... Explanation of time Yes.
periods, postmark
deadlines.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................. Applicability...... Initial applicability...... Yes. Subpart PPPPP
clarifies applicability at
Sec. 63.9285.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................. Applicability...... Title V operating permit-- Yes. All major affected
reference to part 70. sources are required to
obtain a title V permit.
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................. Applicability...... Record of applicability Yes.
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................. Applicability...... Applicability after Yes. Subpart PPPPP
standards are set. clarifies the
applicability of each
paragraph of subpart A to
sources subject to subpart
PPPPP.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................. Applicability...... Title V permit requirement No. Area sources are not
for area sources. subject to subpart PPPPP.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)................. Applicability...... Extension of compliance for No. Existing sources are
existing sources. not covered by the
substantive control
requirements of subpart
PPPPP.
[[Page 34569]]
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)................. Applicability...... Notification requirements Yes.
for an area source
becoming a major source.
Sec. 63.1(d).................... [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.1(e).................... Applicability...... Applicability of permit Yes.
program before a relevant
standard has been set.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions........ Definitions for part 63 Yes. Additional definitions
standards. are specified in Sec.
63.9375.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Units and abbreviations for Yes.
Abbreviations. part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited Prohibited activities; Yes.
Activities. compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5(a).................... Construction/ Construction and Yes.
Reconstruction. reconstruction--applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)................. Construction/ Requirements upon Yes.
Reconstruction. construction or
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)................. Construction/ Approval of construction... Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(4)................. Construction/ Notification of Yes.
Reconstruction. construction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................. Construction/ Compliance................. Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................. Construction/ Addition of equipment...... Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(c).................... [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.5(d).................... Construction/ Application for Yes.
Reconstruction. construction
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).................... Construction/ Approval of construction or Yes.
Reconstruction. reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).................... Construction/ Approval of construction or Yes.
Reconstruction. reconstruction based on
prior State review.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Applicability...... Applicability of standards Yes.
and monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(2)............. Compliance dates Standards apply at Yes.
for new and effective date; 3 years
reconstructed after effective date; upon
sources. startup; 10 years after
construction or
reconstruction commences
for CAA section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(3)................. Compliance dates ........................... No.
for new and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(4)................. Compliance dates Compliance dates for Yes.
for new and sources also subject to
reconstructed CAA section 112(f)
sources. standards.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Compliance dates Notification............... Yes.
for new and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance dates Compliance dates for new Yes.
for new and and reconstructed area
reconstructed sources that become major.
sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............. Compliance dates Effective date establishes No. Existing sources are
for existing compliance date. not covered by the
sources. substantive control
requirements of subpart
PPPPP.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. Compliance dates Compliance dates for Yes. If the area source
for existing existing area sources that becomes a major source by
sources. become major. addition or
reconstruction, the added
or reconstructed portion
will be subject to subpart
PPPPP.
Sec. 63.6(d).................... [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)............. Operation and Operation and maintenance.. Yes; except that you are
maintenance not required to have a
requirements. startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. SSMP............... (1) Requirement for No. Subpart PPPPP does not
startup, shutdown, or require a SSMP.
malfunction and SSMP.
(2) Content of SSMP........
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. Compliance except ........................... No. You must comply with
during startup, emission standards at all
shutdown, or times, including startup,
malfunction. shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec. 63.6(f) (2)-(3)............ Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and maintenance
plans, records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g) (1)-(3)............ Alternative Procedures for getting an Yes.
Standard. alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).................... Opacity/Visible Requirements for opacity/VE No. Subpart PPPPP does not
Emission (VE) Standards. establish opacity/VE
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS).
[[Page 34570]]
Sec. 63.6(i) (1)-(14)........... Compliance Procedures and criteria for No. Compliance extension
Extension. Administrator to grant provisions apply to
compliance extension. existing sources, which do
not have emission
limitations in subpart
PPPPP.
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential President may exempt source Yes.
Compliance category from requirement
Exemption. to comply with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a) (1)-(2)............ Performance Test Dates for conducting No. Subpart PPPPP does not
Dates. initial performance require performance
testing and other testing.
compliance demonstrations;
must conduct within 180
days after first subject
to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. Section 114 Administrator may require a Yes.
Authority. performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................. Notification of ........................... No.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................. Notification No. of ........................... No.
Rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality Assurance/ ........................... No.
Test Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing Facilities. ........................... No.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Conditions FOR ........................... No.
Conducting
Performance Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................. Conditions for ........................... No.
Conducting
Performance Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................. Test Run Duration.. ........................... No.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4)................. Other Performance Administrator may require Yes.
Testing. other testing under CAA
section 114.
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test ........................... No.
Method.
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Performance No. ........................... No.
Test Data Analysis.
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Tests.... ........................... No.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................. Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes. Subpart PPPPP contains
Monitoring requirements in standard. specific requirements for
Requirements. monitoring at Sec.
63.9325.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................. Performance Performance Specifications Yes.
Specifications.. in appendix B of 40 CRF
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Monitoring with ........................... No. Subpart PPPPP does not
Flares. have monitoring
requirements for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)................. Monitoring......... Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b) (2)-(3)............ Multiple Effluents (1) Specific requirements Yes.
and Multiple for installing monitoring
Monitoring Systems. systems.
................... (2) Must install on each
effluent before it is
combined and before it is
released to the atmosphere
unless Administrator
approves otherwise.
................... (3) If more than one
monitoring system on an
emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................. Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system Yes.
Operation and in a manner consistent
Maintenance. with good air pollution
control practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).............. Routine and ........................... No.
Predictable
Startup, Shutdown,
or Malfunction.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. Startup, Shutdown, ........................... No.
or Malfunction not
in SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Compliance with (1) Determination by Yes.
Operation and Administrator whether
Maintenance source is complying with
Requirements. operation and maintenance
requirements.
(2) Review of source
operation and maintenance
procedures, records,
manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations and
inspection.
63.8(c) (2)-(3).................. Monitoring System (1) Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission of
parameter measurements.
(2) Must verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
[[Page 34571]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous ........................... No. Follow specific
Monitoring System Requirements in Sec.
(CMS) requirements. 63.9335(a) and (b).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. COMS Minimum ........................... No.
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c) (6)-(8)............ CMS Requirements... (1) Zero and high level Yes; except that subpart
calibration check PPPPP does not require
requirements. COMS.
(2) Out-of-control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d).................... CMS Quality Control (1) Requirements for CMS Yes.
quality control, including
calibration, etc.
(2) Must keep quality
control plan on record for
5 years; keep old versions
for 5 years after
revisions.
Sec. 63.8(e).................... CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes; except for Sec.
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, 63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
reports. applies to COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f) (1)-(5)............ Alternative Procedures for Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to approve
alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to Procedures for Yes.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g).................... Data Reduction..... (1) COMS 6-minute averages Yes; except that provisions
calculated over at least for COMS are not
36 evenly spaced data applicable
points.
(2) CEMS 1-hour averages Averaging periods for
computed over at least 4 demonstrating compliance
equally spaced data points. are specified at Sec.
63.9340
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................. Data Reduction..... Data that cannot be used in No. Specific language is
computing averages for located at Sec.
CEMS and COMS. 63.9335(a).
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Applicability and state Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)............. Initial (1) Submit notification 120 Yes.
Notifications. days after effective date;.
(2) Notification of intent
to construct/reconstruct;
Notification of
commencement of construct/
reconstruct; Notification
of startup;.
(3) Contents of each.......
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for ........................... No.
Compliance
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for proposal and promulgation
New Source. and want to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of ........................... No.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of ........................... No.
Opacity/VE Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)................. Additional Notification of performance Yes.
Notifications When evaluation.
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)................. Additional ........................... No.
Notifications When
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)................. Additional Notification that exceeded Yes. If alternative is in
Notifications When criterion for relative use.
Using CMS. accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)............. Notification of (1) Contents............... Yes.
Compliance Status.
(2) Due 60 days after end
of performance test or
other compliance
demonstration, except for
opacity/VE, which are due
after 30 days.
(3) When to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Administrator to approve
Deadlines. change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes.
Information. after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping/ (1) Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension.
(2) When to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority.
(3) Procedures for owners
of more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ Recordkeeping/ (1) General requirements... Yes.
Reporting.
(2) Keep all records
readily available.
[[Page 34572]]
(3) Keep for 5 years.......
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)......... Records related to ........................... No.
Startup, Shutdown,
or Malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)....... CMS Records........ Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes.
out-of-control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Records............ Records when under waiver.. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records............ Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records............ All documentation Yes.
supporting initial
notification and
notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Records............ Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15).. Records............ Additional records for CEMS Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c) (7)-(8)........... Records............ Records of excess emissions No. Specific language is
and parameter monitoring located at Sec. 63.9355.
exceedances for CMS..
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Requirement to report...... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Report of When to submit to Federal Yes.
Performance Test or State authority.
Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Reporting Opacity ........................... No.
or VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress Reports... ........................... No.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ Startup, Shutdown, ........................... No.
or Malfunction
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)..... Additional CMS Additional CMS reports..... Yes.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............ Additional CMS ........................... No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................ Additional CMS Excess emissions and No. Specific language is
Reports. parameter exceedances located in Sec. 63.9350.
report.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ Additional CMS No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11...................... Control Device No.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and State authority to enforce Yes.
Delegations. standards.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses of State Addresses where reports, Yes.
Air Pollution notifications, and
Control Offices requests are send.
and EPA Regional
Offices.
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Test methods incorporated Yes.
reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
information and information.
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-11296 Filed 5-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P